Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Engineering Industries

Mr. Maurice Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of increasing redundancy and underemployment in certain engineering industries; and what action he is taking to absorb into productive employment the labour made available.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): No, Sir. The latest information available to me does not suggest that there is any substantial increase of redundancy or short-time in engineering. The demands of engineering firms for labour far exceed the number of workers available. There is no difficulty or delay in finding other employment for the small numbers becoming redundant.

Mr. Edelman: But does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that a large number of vacancies are for unskilled and semi-skilled labour and are not suitable for many of those skilled men who have lately become redundant and whose numbers are increasing? In order to prevent massive unemployment in the engineering industry this winter, will he not use the same techniques of planning and improvisation as were used by the Labour Government to preserve full employment during six difficult years?

Sir W. Monckton: I will certainly endeavour to profit by the work of others. I should like to say also that as far as my information goes there is no difficulty at present in placing skilled engineers.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is causing great concern amongst many

workers in Birmingham? May I tell him that this morning I had a telephone message from a firm who are having to stand off men this week owing to shortage of materials? Is this equivalent to the direction of labour?

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. This is not equivalent to the direction of labour. There are, of course, differences in different areas. I was giving a national conspectus. I am aware of and am watching difficulties in different areas.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: When my right hon. and learned Friend says small numbers are temporarily redundant, could he tell the House about how many?

Sir W. Monckton: I think that is another question. If my hon. Friend wants information about that perhaps he will put down a Question.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to, give notice, Mr. Speaker, that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Anglesey

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered disabled persons unemployed in the county of Anglesey.

Sir W. Monckton: There were 66 at 15th October.

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in Anglesey.

Sir W. Monckton: Five hundred and ninety-seven at 15th October, the latest date for which figures are available.

Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask whether these figures are not published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" and therefore need not be the subject of a Parliamentary Question?

War-Disabled Persons, Scotland

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered war-disabled persons unemployed in Scotland.

Sir W. Monckton: At 15th October, 3,657 disabled persons who had served in the Forces were registered as unemployed


in Scotland. The records do not distinguish between disabilities attributable to war service and those due to other causes.

State Boards

Mr. E. H. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to prevent a recurrence of the incident in which a State board took into its service a person who, having been a secret agent of a foreign Power, had been deprived of British citizenship at the instance of the Government.

Sir W. Monckton: While it is for an employer to take such steps as he feels necessary to avoid employing an unsuitable person, it is the practice of my Department not to submit for vacancies, where security interests are involved, persons who are known to be unsuitable. I understand that the post in question was not one in which any security interests were involved.

Mr. Keeling: I did not make the request which has been refused. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this man gave a false name? Should not an applicant who, like this man, was palpably not British, have at least been required to establish who he was?

Sir W. Monckton: I believe my Department placed about three million people in the last year. I do not know what proportion of them would have spoken English indifferently, but it would have been an immense addition to the task of my Department to have had to investigate each of those cases.

Mr. Keeling: I referred only to State boards.

Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs

Mr. E. Carson: asked the Minister of Labour the latest unemployment figures for Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs, respectively, at the latest convenient date.

Sir W. Monckton: At 15th October, the numbers of persons registered as unemployed at employment exchanges in Ramsgate and Margate were 759 and 868, respectively. There is no employment exchange at Broadstairs, which is in the area of the Ramsgate employment exchange.

Mr. Carson: Does the Minister not realise that if these figures follow their customary course they will double in January or February, and does he realise furthermore that 5 per cent. of our adult population in the constituency will then be unemployed as opposed to the national average of.9 per cent.? Is it not time that my right hon. and learned Friend looked into this seasonal problem more closely?

Sir W. Monckton: It is my task to look into these seasonal changes, and I would remind my hon. Friend that the position, judged by a year ago, has improved.

Hardship Appeal Committee, Leeds (Chairmanship)

Mr. T. Charles Pannell: asked the Minister of Labour why he has relieved Mr. G. Haggen of Leeds of his chairmanship of the National Service hardship committee and local appeal board.

Sir W. Monckton: Mr. Haggen's appointments as chairman of a Military Service (Hardship) Committee and local appeal board were for the duration of his appointment as chairman of a court of referees and later of a local tribunal of the Ministry of National Insurance. When he ceased to be chairman of a local tribunal the other two appointments were, in consequence, terminated.

Mr. Pannell: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me why it was that as recently as 1st March last this gentleman was appointed by the Secretary of State for Air, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, and has become the chairman of the R.A.F. Appeal Tribunal? Is he aware that this gentleman is under the impression that he is being victimised by Government Departments?

Sir W. Monckton: I was not aware of the information which the hon. Gentleman has added about the other Ministry. I can only say that it has been found desirable that the chairmanships referred to in my answer should be held by the same person.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Voluntary Schools

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education whether she will now introduce legislation in accordance


with the agreement reached between her Department and the voluntary schools representatives.

Mr. Carson: asked the Minister of Education what progress is being made with the discussions which are proceeding with the Roman Catholic and other denominational religions regarding grants in aid for their respective schools.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Education what alterations in the financial grant made to voluntary schools are to be made, and when they will operate.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given on 15th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude).

Mr. Thomas: Does that reply mean that the Minister fully concurs in the all-party agreement that was reached by her predecessor, and is legislation going to be forthcoming?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have looked into this matter. No agreement, to which the hon. Member refers in his Question, was reached between the Department and the voluntary schools representatives. Discussions took place and they were being carried on. It is my intention to go on with those discussions, and I hope to find an agreement which will be satisfactory to all.

Mr. Christopher Hollis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while we all wish her well in working out such legislative proposals as may seem necessary, at the same time this problem is also largely a matter of administration, and will she do all she possibly can to preserve the happy relationship between local education authorities and the different denominations which exist over the greater part of the country, upon which the successful solution to this problem depends?

Miss Horsbrugh: That will certainly be my aim.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her predecessor did conduct discussions with all interested parties and that a solution had been arrived at? Will she not say at the earliest possible moment whether she intends to apply this solution and ask this House to pass the necessary Measures?

Miss Horsbrugh: I gather that a complete solution had not been found, but I shall certainly look into this matter with the greatest possible speed, and I am entirely in favour of making an announcement to this House as soon as possible.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: Would my right hon. Friend be likely to make an announcement early in the New Year?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think it would be best if I said that I want to do this as quickly as possible and that I shall make an announcement as soon as it can possibly be made.

Building Programme

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education whether she will make a statement on the anticipated effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals on school building planned by Welsh education authorities and approved by her Department.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Education what cuts are proposed in the school building programme for 1952.

Mr. J. Slater: asked the Minister of Education what effect the building cuts will have on the building of new schools in the county of Durham for the years 1952 and 1953.

Miss Horsbrugh: Until the Government have completed the review of capital expenditure in 1952, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7th November, no decision will be taken to alter the educational building programme.

Mr. Thomas: Does that answer mean the welcome assurance that the building plans for Wales will be allowed to go on unimpeded?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think it means exactly what I said—that no change will be made until we have the decision of the inquiry which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Thomas: Can the right hon. Lady say when that announcement is expected?

Miss Horsbrugh: As soon as the review has taken place.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that when these proposals are discussed at the Cabinet meeting she will do all in her power to be there?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that it will need no effort on my part to be at the Cabinet meeting when these things are discussed, as I have already been informed that I may attend Cabinet meetings at any time that anything touching education is discussed.

Inspectors (Training)

Mr. Edward Short: asked the Minister of Education whether she will ensure that all His Majesty's inspectors of schools have had adequate teaching experience in the types of schools they are called upon to inspect.

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir, it would impose an undesirable rigidity on the service to make such a requirement. His Majesty's inspectors are drawn from all parts of the teaching profession and may be called upon to inspect any type of school in which their advice is likely to be useful.

Mr. Short: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that since different types of school have different methods and pupils of different ages it is very unfair to the school teachers and everybody concerned that an inspector should be called upon to inspect a type of school of which he has no experience, especially in view of the fact that he will be inspecting the work of experienced teachers and their future professional prospects may well depend upon the reports given?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir, I think it would make for too much rigidity. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree if someone who had perhaps been teaching art, but not in a primary school, was asked to give advice it would be very useful. If the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was adopted as a rule, we should not profit by it; it would be better to leave the matter as it is.

Mr. Edward Evans: Do the right hon. Lady's observations apply to specialised branches of teaching, such as the special schools branch for blind, deaf, epileptics and so on?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think it is better not to lay down a hard and fast rule but to try and see that His Majesty's inspectors can bring varied experience to their work; I think this would be of help to the teachers and to the schools.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, as there is a desperate shortage of teachers in every grade of teaching, if we take teachers and make inspectors of them it will only lessen the number of teachers?

Graduate Teachers (Remuneration)

Mr. Peter Remnant: asked the Minister of Education whether she will cause an inquiry to be made into the inadequate remuneration of graduate teachers.

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir. The current salary scales for teachers are those recommended by the Burnham Committee, and came into force as recently as 1st April last.

Mr. Remnant: Is the Minister aware that graduates are coming into the teaching profession in ever-decreasing numbers, partly because the salaries in other professions are greater and partly because the existing graduate teacher salaries are now lower than they were before the war, if we take into account the decrease in the value of the £, and would she call the attention of the Burnham Committee to this matter?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware of many of those facts, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is better for the discussions to take place within the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be dangerous to differentiate between graduate teachers and non-graduate teachers in this connection?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Could my right hon. Friend not approach the Burnham Committee in this matter? Is it not monstrous that graduate teachers with 25 years' service should still be receiving an income of about only £650 a year? Surely that is a matter for the Burnham Committee to consider?

Mr. S. S. Awbery: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a great shortage of graduate science teachers because they have been offered greater remuneration in other employment outside the teaching profession? Will the right hon. Lady give earnest and serious attention to the problem of graduate teachers' salaries?

Miss Horsbrugh: I will certainly give attention to this matter, but we must realise that these scales were decided by the Burnham Committee in April. While watching the result, we should realise that the Committee had responsibility at that time.

Dental Service

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Education how many dentists are required by the school dental service to complete its establishment.

Miss Horsbrugh: For a complete service of dental inspection and treatment, in which every child is seen annually and all children who require treatment accept and receive it, I estimate that a ratio of at least one dentist to 3,000 children would be required, and for this purpose the equivalent of an additional 1,150 full-time dentists would be needed. To get the service back to its 1948 level some 200 additional school dentists would be needed in England and Wales.

Mr. Remnant: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity of consulting the British Dental Association as to the best means of overcoming these shortages?

Miss Horsbrugh: I will certainly consult with various associations on means of overcoming the shortages, which are well known to all of us in the House.

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Minister of Education what steps she is taking to improve the school dental service.

Miss Horsbrugh: I intend to review the whole problem of the school dental service. In the meantime, I hope that the salary scales fixed earlier this year by the Dental Whitley Council may attract more dentists to the school dental service.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Could the right hon. Lady say how many dentists have already been attracted by these new scales?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am afraid I cannot give that information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question?

Miss Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shortage of dentists is partly due to the fact that there are not sufficient training facilities for those who want to become dentists? Will she consult with the appropriate Department to see whether training facilities can be expanded?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am fully aware that there are not enough trained dentists in this country. There are not enough dentists in training because there are not enough teachers for dentistry or opportunities for people to learn.

Divisional Executives

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Education to what extent the proposed economies in education will affect the future of divisional executives.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am considering the need to secure economy in the education service without reducing its efficiency. Until I have completed my review I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that when in Opposition the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed some disquieting views on this matter and that we are not very happy to hear her answer today?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not happy. I hope the information I shall be giving later will show that any disquieting views he holds are without foundation.

Mr. Pannell: When the hon. Lady considers the future of the divisional executives, will she also consider the need for the democratic control of a local education service reasonably near to the children in the schools and not remotely situated in some far-away county town?

Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do that. I have always been against too much centralisation and in favour of as much local opinion and local authority as possible.

General Certificate Examination

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education the percentage of pupils who passed the examination for the General Certificate of Education in 1951.

Miss Horsbrugh: The information about the numbers of entries and passes in the different subjects at the ordinary and advanced levels of the General Certificate of Education will not be available until early in the New Year.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the National Union of Teachers are holding divisional meetings upon this very question and that specialist teachers have been expressing the view that the standards are high and that the examination is leading to undue specialisation in a few subjects, the very opposite to what we hoped to achieve through this new examination?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware that that is being said, and I am sorry that the hopes of a great many people have been dashed. We must certainly look into the whole subject.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the "Daily Herald" greeted this examination with the slogan that it was an examination which no one could fail? In the event of anyone failing, does she not agree that this will gravely shake the confidence of youth in the promises of the late Government?

Mr. John E. Crowder: asked the Minister of Education if she will amend the Regulations so as to enable children to sit for the General Certificate of Education before reaching the age of 16 years; and if she will reintroduce a distinction mark for this examination.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have not yet had time to consider this problem in all its aspects, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that it is my intention to do so.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Lady also keep in mind the serious danger of pressing children at too early an age?

Miss Horsbrugh: Most certainly. I think the whole matter has got to be reviewed. We do not want to press the children at too early an age. Nor do we want to keep them back.

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education to what extent the standstill in school building will affect any comprehensive schools.

Miss Horsbrugh: Most of the comprehensive schools due to start building soon are in London, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) last Thursday.

Mr. Johnson: I am very happy to hear that because, when in opposition, her colleagues saw this matter in a partisan and political light, and I am very pleased—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman asking a question?

Mr. Johnson: I was asking the hon. Lady whether she was aware of the pleasure of hon. Members on this side of the House at the attitude of her colleagues on that side of the House.

Sir H. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend taken steps to stop this most reactionary proposal of comprehensive schools?

Text-Books (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Education if she is aware of the high price of history books; and what steps she is taking to ensure that pupils in secondary schools may get books recommended for study at a reasonable price.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware of the rise in the cost of books and I hope that local education authorities, who are responsible for the supply of books, will find means of ensuring that the essential needs of the schools are met.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is an opinion in the country that the price of history books is scandalously high and that there is gross profiteering in this industry? I have here a history book published at 25s. If I give her the name of the author and the publisher, will she submit it to the Monopolies Commission?

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps it would be better if the hon. Gentleman himself took any steps that he thinks wise on the subject of the price of books. I thought he was perhaps going to present the book to me.

Lord John Hope: is my right hon. Friend aware that she will be doing a


great service to the community if she gives the hon. Gentleman the book free of charge?

Mr. John Hynd: Is the Minister not aware that this applies not only to history books but to practically all the equipment which the schools have to provide, and that it is largely due to Purchase Tax? Will she make representations to her colleagues for a reduction for schools?

Miss Horsbrugh: I have already pointed out that this is a matter for the local education authority. The decision as to which books are obtained is not made by the Ministry. I have already said that I agree that the high and rising cost of books is something which must have very careful attention.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the restrictive practices of compositors and other employees in the printing trade contribute very largely to this price?

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the book I have offered, for a consideration, was written by the Prime Minister?

Miss Horsbrugh: Then I think it was certainly worth any price asked.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the obviously unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mixed Grammar School (Erith)

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Minister of Education on what date it is proposed to commence the erection of the Erith Mixed Grammar School.

Miss Horsbrugh: I understand that the local education authority expect to be ready to start building next April.

Mr. Pannell: If the Minister is faced with any situation demanding a deferment in this case, will she remember that there have been continual disppointments in the building of this school since 1919 and that it has been the first victim in its county of every economy ramp?

Miss Horsbrugh: I will certainly remember that. Where there have been disappointments in the past, we hope that those who were disappointed will find that they are now getting a better share of things.

Swimming Instruction

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Education what statistics are now kept showing what facilities exist for the teaching of swimming to pupils of State schools; what proportion of these pupils can and cannot swim, respectively, and at what ages; and how the numbers of such pupils able to swim at such respective ages now compare with those in each of the previous 20 years.

Miss Horsbrugh: My Department does not keep statistics about the teaching of swimming.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the importance of this topic from every point of view, will the Minister take steps to keep such statistics in future and do everything she can to promote swimming lessons, which are educationally important?

Miss Horsbrugh: I certainly approve of as much education in swimming as possible, but, as to the keeping of statistics, I am reluctant to add to statistics that may not add to the amount of swimming lessons.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Could the question of statistics not be referred to Lord Cherwell?

Technical Education, North Wales

Mr. T. W. Jones: asked the Minister of Education what steps she proposes to take to ensure that technical education will be available for those pupils in North Wales schools not within daily travelling distance to Wrexham and Flint.

Miss Horsbrugh: For children of school age technical education is provided within the secondary schools of North Wales. As regards technical education for those who have left school, local education authorities have been asked to submit their proposals for the further education building programme for 1953–57. I understand that these will involve some joint day provision amongst local education authorities in North-West Wales, together with boarding provision for the whole area in North-East Wales, but I cannot say at this stage what priority may be given to these projects.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Basutoland Delegation (U.K. Visit)

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the recent official discussions with a delegation from Basutoland and as to the nature of the undertakings given with reference to the future of the Protectorate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to questions on this subject put by the hon. Members for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), and Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), on 15th November.

Mr. Hale: Yes, but will the hon. and learned Gentleman stop using this word "consult" and make a forthright and unequivocal declaration that the sovereignty of this land will not be transferred without the full consent and agreement of the inhabitants?

Mr. Foster: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the answer to Question No. 45, to be put to the Prime Minister.

Bamangwato Reserve (Tribal Dispute)

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what action he proposes taking with regard to the banishment of Seretse Khama and Tshekedi Khama from the Bamangwato Reserve of the Bechuanaland Protectorate; whether a full judicial inquiry will be instituted; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Foster: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is carefully studying the complicated problem which Bamangwato affairs present. Until he has made himself conversant with it, I can make no statement on his behalf.

Mr. Benn: Are we to understand from that reply that the statement made by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs in the summer that it was monstrous that an exclusion order should operate without judicial inquiry represents the policy of the Government?

Mr. Foster: I cannot anticipate the action which my noble Friend may take while he is studying these affairs.

Bechuanaland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will give an assurance that the present Government will adhere to the pledges given by His Majesty's Government during the passage of the South African Bill through this House in 1909, namely, that no transfer of Bechuanaland shall take place until the inhabitants of that territory shall have been consulted and until this House shall have an opportunity of expressing its views.

Mr. J. Foster: Yes, Sir. I gladly give that assurance.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you very much.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Cycles and Motor Cycles (Exports)

Mr. Frederick Peart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department proposes to take to regain European markets for British cycles and motor cycles.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The number of motor cycles exported from the United Kingdom to Europe in the first nine months of this year was greater than the number exported in the whole of 1950 and more than twice the annual average from 1936 to 1938. The number of pedal cycles exported to Europe shows a similar increase. The question of regaining these markets in Europe as a whole does not arise, but I am, of course, alive to the need for further expansion, and this need will be kept in mind in our trade negotiations.

Mr. Peart: Can we have an assurance that the recent drastic cut in imports will not affect this very important export trade?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That question, of course, could hardly be addressed to me. It would have to be addressed to the countries concerned. However, I certainly hope not, and I would pay a tribute to the men and managements in the industry for their magnificent effort.

Monopolies Commission (Review)

Mr. W. F. Deedes: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many industries are at present under the review of the Monopolies Commission; how many reports may be expected before the end of this year; and whether he will make a general statement on progress made.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Seven, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, the Commission has already reported this year on the supply of cast iron rainwater goods and on the supply of electric lamps. I understand that a further report is not likely to be made this year.
On the last part of the Question, the Commission has now made three reports, and much preliminary work has, of course, been done on several of the other matters on which references have been made. These three reports have been widely and deservedly commended.
But it is plain that as now constituted, and with the present number of members, the Commission cannot improve on the present rate of performance, except at the risk of some lowering of the present high standard of reporting. I therefore intend, as already announced, to introduce next year a Measure to strengthen the Commission and widen the scope of its activities.

Mr. Deedes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are any other matters besides these specific industries that the Commission has to have under review? Are there not a large number of questions that have been referred to it which are now awaiting decision?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir; there are certain practices which can be referred to the Commission, but the scope of the Commission's inquiries is a matter which will fall to be decided when the Bill is put before the House of Commons.

Mr. Edelman: Will not the right hon. Gentleman at some future date bring the question of electrical equipment for the motor industry under review, and will he, in that connection, assure the House that he will make the fullest use of the invaluable experience of monopolies possessed by some of his Ministerial colleagues?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should not hesitate to refer any appropriate matter

to the Commission, but the difficulty at the moment is that with the Commission as at present constituted there is clearly a limit to the number of matters which it can consider. One of the first things we have to see to is how to strengthen the Commission and widen the scope of their inquiry.

Gummed Paper (Imports)

Mr. Percy Holman: asked the President of the Board of Trade if a decision has yet been reached as to the classification of gummed paper in reels and sheets; and how far the importation of this article is o be permitted from the continent of Europe under licence.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The open general licence for gummed paper in reels and sheets has been revoked as from 8th November, 1951, for those countries to which it formerly applied, other than the Scheduled Territories.
Imports from the countries affected, including Western Europe, will be licensed under the import quota for manufactures of paper and board. Licences under this quota, which covers most manufactures of paper and board, will be issued for £800,000 c.i.f. in respect of the period ending 30th June, 1952. Details of these arrangements were given in Notice to Importers No. 467, issued by the Board of Trade on 19th November, 1951.

Mr. Holman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if it is not the fact that gummed paper was classified as coated paper and that this represents a different classification? Furthermore, is he aware that this is an essential element in packaging, and that already firms are being held up in their finishing departments in the export trade as well as the home trade, and that there is a shortage? Will he assure us that no further delay will arise in promoting imports under contracts that have already been made?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Gummed paper is, of course, included in this respect within the general definition of paper and board, and it is not possible to isolate it. On the second part of the supplementary question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will draw my attention to specific cases he has in mind.

Exports to Russia

Brigadier Terence Clarke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that no potential war materials will be exported from this country to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or her satellites while our troops are fighting in Korea.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it is our policy to prevent the export to these countries of goods which are of any significant strategic importance. We are watching this matter most carefully.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that his answer will give great satisfaction to the relatives of our men who are fighting in Korea?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that there is at present no change in the policy pursued by the previous Government?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It depends over what period the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, but the immediate situation has not changed in recent weeks.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that materials have been sent to China which have been urgently required by the Royal Navy in the last 12 months, in spite of representations to his predecessor?

Companies (Proxy Forms)

Mr. John Arbuthnot: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take action to ensure that proxy forms sent out by companies are so framed that they give the shareholder the opportunity of indicating which way he wishes to vote; and, when there is more than one resolution, that the shareholder can vote for one resolution and against another.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A form of two-way proxy is set out in paragraph 71 of Table A of the Companies Act, 1948, but its use is optional and we have no power to insist on its adoption. The Cohen Committee, on whose recommendations the Act is based, thought it advisable not to deal with this matter by legislation but to leave it to be regulated by the Stock Exchange.
The Stock Exchange has for some years imposed suitable requirements on companies seeking permission to deal, but

these requirements apply only to companies which have applied for such permission since the requirements were imposed and the company which I understand my hon. Friend has in mind is not one of them. Where the two-way proxy form is used, the practice normally is to take account of the point referred to in the last part of the Question.

Purchase Tax (Double Invoicing)

Mr. F. A. Burden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends taking to stop the practice of double invoicing between some converters of cloth and their customers, in view of the fact that this practice is detrimental to the public and reduces the revenue from purchase tax.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Steps are being taken to prohibit this practice in the near future.

Mr. Burden: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the widespread satisfaction which will be felt by the rapid steps which he has taken to bring an end to this abuse?

Cotton Importations (Committee)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary for Overseas Trade, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will take steps to permit the private importation of raw cotton as a preliminary to the reopening of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have invited the organisations on both sides of the industry concerned with the importation and use of raw cotton to appoint representatives to a small committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Richard Hopkins for the purpose of working out the best practicable scheme for the importation of raw cotton. This invitation has been accepted and the Committee is about to start work. The Government hope that in this way an enduring solution acceptable to all concerned will be found. I think all the interests concerned agree that the work of the Raw Cotton Commission must continue in order that supplies may be assured.

Mr. Erroll: While this committee is deliberating—and committees take a long time to deliberate—cannot a start be made in breaking down the monopoly in the importation of raw cotton?

Mr. Hopkinson: No, Sir. I do not think we would wish to do anything to prejudice the issues before the committee.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Secretary for Overseas Trade make any estimate of the increase in cost of world cotton if we were to put into the world market, under the present arrangement, private buyers in competition with the Cotton Commission?

Mr. Hopkinson: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (REPORT)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet received the report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment; and when it will be made available.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): No, Sir. I understand that the report will not be ready for some months.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the life and death importance of this, can the Home Secretary do anything to expedite the report of this Commission, which has now been sitting for many years?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has by his form of words emphasised the importance of the subject. How long the Commission take must be a matter for them, and I hope that we shall get a full and satisfactory report as a basis for our thoughts and discussions.

Mr. Hale: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how many times this Commission has met in the two or three years since it has been appointed?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTIONS (VOTING)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the Representation of the People Acts to make it legally obligatory for all people to cast their vote.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: While I appreciate that the idea contained in the Question may not be entirely satisfactory, does not the Home Secretary feel that some method should be adopted to make certain that everyone who is on the register should vote, and will he consider looking into this matter with a view to making it more easy for people to be able to cast their vote?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that the whole House will have noticed that the poll in the last two General Elections was over 80 per cent., which does not seem to indicate any need to make voting compulsory.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, as an alternative, consider a simple intelligence test before people exercise their vote?

Mr. I. Mikardo: While resisting the very formidable temptation to comment on the last supplementary, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is aware that a good deal of the difference between the figures of 83 per cent. or 84 per cent. and 100 per cent. is due to the register being so largely out-of-date, and will he now give further consideration to a return to the arrangement under which the register is made up half-yearly instead of yearly?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot accept the implication in the first part of the supplementary question, but I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to arrange for polling day at each General Election to be declared a national public holiday.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Home Secretary aware of the fact that, while postal voting is very helpful, many people who have


to work get sudden orders before polling day which prevent them from going to the poll, and that if this suggestion were carried out it would mean that those at work would have an opportunity of casting their vote?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: There are a great many difficult aspects to this question. I have tried to consider them all and, having considered them, I did not think that a sufficient case had been made out for the proposal. I will willingly consider any point which the hon. Gentleman puts to me.

Captain Richard Pilkington: Was not the last occasion in fact a day of national rejoicing?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH PROTECTORATES)

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister what representations have been received from the Government of the Union of South Africa concerning the transfer to the Union of the three British Protectorates; if, in order to safeguard the rights of the peoples of these territories, he will initiate a special consultation on this problem between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and if he will reaffirm the undertakings given by previous Governments.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): No representations on this subject have been received by His Majesty's Government from the present Government of the Union of South Africa.
I do not consider it necessary to initiate the special consultation which the hon. Member suggests. His Majesty's Ministers are always in the closest contact with one another.
I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government consider themselves bound by the pledges concerning the future of these territories which have been made on many occasions during the past forty years by previous Governments. These pledges are that transfer of the Territories to the Union of South Africa should not take place until their inhabitants have been consulted and until

the United Kingdom Parliament has been given an opportunity of expressing its views.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in order to allay the alarm created by many public statements made in South Africa, he will see that the consultation will be really effective consultation, and would indeed amount to the full consent of the peoples of the territories concerned?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member, on reflection, will perhaps agree that when the position has been established for so long a period as 40 years, one should not go out of one's way to take the initiative in making a change in the situation.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not a fact that alarm has not been created but has been engendered?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot distinguish without some careful thought between the implication of the difference between created and engendered.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Feedingstuffs (Ration Scales)

Mr. Robert Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to increase the amount of coarse grain for pigs and poultry without reducing the allocation to other forms of livestock.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he has taken to ensure an adequate supply of animal feedingstuffs for West Wales and Cornwall during the coming winter.

Mr. Robert Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that the supplies of coarse grain are sufficient for our livestock this winter.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): I have nothing to add at present to the statement my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food made about supplies of animal feeding-stuffs in the Debate on the Address on 9th November. I expect to be able to make an announcement shortly about ration scales for the period January to April, 1952.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend if he is aware of the difficulties of our pig and poultry keepers to maintain stock at the present time, and that an increase can be brought about only by increasing the quantity of feeding-stuffs?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am very well aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I should like to inform the House that the Ministry's Advisory Committee on the Rationing of Animal Feedingstuffs has been consulted, as is the usual practice, and their advice will be taken into account before a decision is reached and announced.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have a word with the President of the Board of Trade in order to see that no difficulties are placed in the way of our continuing to get coarse grains from the Soviet Union?

Mr. George Brown: In view of the firm declaration which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself made in July in this House, that it would be safer to rely on Canadian supplies than on sterling area supplies, will he tell the House what steps he has taken to obtain these dollar supplies?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think that question should be directed to the Minister of Food.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself made the statement. He is now responsible; and the farmers are expecting an answer.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am very well aware of that statement. I am also co-operating very closely with the Minister of Food, and the relationship is most cordial at the moment.

Mr. Donnelly: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration in the allocation of these feedingstuffs the great difficulties which face these farmers, especially the small farmers in the West country, which is wetter than the Eastern counties?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The rationing arrangements apply to West Wales and Cornwall in common with the remainder of Great Britain.

Mr. James Hudson: Could there not be a considerable diversion of feeding-stuffs for animals from the amount of barley to which reference was made yesterday in a reply to a Question from me?

Rabbits (Trapping)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the large number of rabbits that reach the markets with their legs lacerated by traps; and whether he will institute an inquiry as to the extent of such cruelty and the means by which it can be abated.

Sir T. Dugdale: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir". In reply to the second part I would refer the hon. Member to the report of the inquiry recently conducted by the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, whose report is being considered by the Government.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give careful consideration to the desirability of introducing legislation to prohibit the use of gin traps, which do much of the damage that I have described?

Sir T. Dugdale: This question has been given very careful consideration, and experiments are now taking place to ascertain the suitability of an alternative trap.

Mr. Hastings: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that these experiments have been going on for many years and that the results have been insufficient? Will he accelerate the experiments in which he is now engaged?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, the experiments have not been proved entirely satisfactory.

Agricultural Produce (Price Review)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he has taken to initiate a special price review for agricultural produce.

Sir T. Dugdale: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to Questions on this subject last Thursday. I am hoping to make a further statement in the near future.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the very great uncertainty which is facing these small farmers, especially the small milk producer farmers, and will he be able to make his statement before the Christmas Recess?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir; I hope very much that that will be possible.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that he will take no steps to increase the cost of living?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will certainly take notice of what the hon. Lady says, but I cannot give the assurance that she would like to hear.

Water Supplies

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many farms and rural households have been first supplied with piped water during the past year; and to how many it is proposed to extend the supply during the coming year.

Sir T. Dugdale: I regret that the precise information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

Mr. Jeger: Would the Minister bear in mind the importance of continuing the supply of piped water to farmers in view of the necessity for increasing our farm output?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. Perhaps I might give the hon. Gentleman the reason why I cannot give the precise figures for which he asked. It is because he used the words "first supplied," but I should like to inform the House that in the 12 months ending 31st October, grants amounting to £837,670 were paid by my Department to farm and agricultural holdings in respect of 7,819 completed water supply schemes in England and Wales.

Mr. Alport: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend review the workings of the 1945 Water Act in view of the failure of the last Government to implement effectively its provisions?

Fowl Pest (Egg Boxes)

Mr. Richard Fort: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take steps to compel the disinfection of egg boxes by fumigation as a means of preventing the spread of fowl pest.

Sir T. Dugdale: My veterinary officers do not consider that egg boxes have been a material factor in the spread of fowl pest, and I am advised that it is not necessary at present to make it obligatory for all egg boxes to be fumigated as a routine measure. We should not hesitate to require the fumigation of egg boxes either over the whole country or in an area if we thought it necessary.

Mr. Fort: Have the veterinary officers of my right hon. and gallant Friend's Department discovered all the methods by which fowl pest is carried from farm to farm so as definitely to exclude it being carried by egg boxes?

Sir T. Dugdale: In Lancashire in which my hon. Friend is particularly interested, the evidence is that egg boxes are not helping to spread the disease at the moment, but it is the practice of egg packing stations in the area to destroy any egg boxes which arrive from premises on which it has been reported fowl pest is suspected to exist.

Electricity Supplies

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many farms were first supplied with electricity during the past year.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am informed that some 9,250 farms in England and Wales were first supplied with electricity during the twelve months ended 30th September, 1951.

Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister assure the House that this excellent progress will be continued under his administration?

Sir T. Dugdale: The question of the distribution of electricity for all purposes is a matter for the Minister of Fuel and Power, who is responsible for the allocation of capital investment by the British Electricity Authority.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether so many farms were served with electricity under private enterprise in pre-war days?

Sir T. Dugdale: This is not a political question at all, but we are indebted to the scientists and engineers for making it possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Subsidies

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture on what terms he proposes to continue the subsidy on white fish beyond February, 1952.

Sir T. Dugdale: The present subsidy arrangements are due to go on until the end of March, 1952. We shall be considering as early as we can in the New Year whether the subsidy should continue after the end of March, and if so on what terms; but I shall not be able to make an announcement until much nearer the time. If it is decided to continue with the subsidy, the scales and conditions will be reviewed again in the light of all the facts.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the tremendous importance which this subsidy has played in the maintenance of the fishing industry, and will he regard the withdrawal of that subsidy as a very great disaster to the industry in the present circumstances?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, but we have to pay attention to the state of the industry at the time.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Could my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether he will re-consider the decision of his predecessor regarding the inclusion of shell fishermen within the subsidy?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will certainly look into that.

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount to date of the subsidy paid to the white fish industry and how this is allocated to the several fishing ports in Great Britain, exclusive of the subsidy paid in respect of inshore fishing.

Sir T. Dugdale: As the reply contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Evans: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us the aggregate figure now?

Sir T. Dugdale: The total amount of the subsidy paid to the near and middle water sections of the white fishing industry during the 15 months from 31st July, 1950, the date on which the subsidy

was introduced, to 31st October, 1951, was £1,239,052.

Following are the figures:


Port
Amount Paid (Near and Middle Water Voyages only)



£


England and Wales:



Brixham and Plymouth
34,543


Cardiff
8,856


Fleetwood
113,801


Grimsby
254,244


Lowestoft and Yarmouth
165,940


Milford Haven
133,616


Newlyn
16,697


North Shields
54,665


Swansea
10,507


Other Ports
26,623


Total England &amp; Wales
£819,492


Scotland:



Aberdeen
342,357


Fraserburgh
11,894


Granton, Newhaven and Leigh
34,107


Peterhead
7,980


Other Ports
23,222


Total Scotland
£419,560


Total Great Britain (to 31st October, 1951)
£1,239,052

Small Fishing Centres

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in his discussions with the authorities concerned with the organisation and welfare of the fishing industry, he will see to it that sympathetic and full consideration is given to the special problems of the smaller fishing villages.

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that, although the contribution made by these smaller places is relatively small, their fishing industry does represent a way of life and a useful alternative employment for their people, and their fishing fleets have dwindled in the last 20 years from perhaps a 100 to about a dozen, and would it not be very unfortunate if they died out altogether?

Sir T. Dugdale: I am well aware of what the hon. Member has said, and, in fact, the Authority is also aware of the importance on social as well as the economic grounds of arresting the drift


of men from the industry, which has been going on for a number of years. In view of that, the Chairman of the Authority recently visited a number of small fishing centres in order to familiarise himself with some of the problems.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Has the Leader of the House any statement to make about the business for next week?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading: Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill, and
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution until 9 p.m.
Second Reading: Festival Pleasure Gardens Bill.
TUESDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Committee stage: Home Guard Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Report stage: outstanding Supplementary Estimates.
Report and Third Reading: Home Guard Bill.
Committee and remaining stages:
Public Works Loans Bill,
Judicial Offices (Salaries, etc.) Bill,
Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill.
Consideration of Motions to approve:
Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Regulations relating to the Protection of Industrial Assurance and Friendly Society Life Policies.
THURSDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading: Ministers of the Crown (Parliamentary Under-Secretaries) Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Afterwards, and it is hoped not later than 7 o'clock, a debate will take place on Christmas Food Supplies, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
This debate has been arranged at the request of the Opposition.
FRIDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading: Consolidated Fund Bill.
Further progress will be made with:
Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
British Museum Bill.
Second Reading: Northern Ireland (Foyle Fisheries) Bill.
Tomorrow, as first Order, we shall ask the House to take the Report stage of the Money Resolution relating to Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown's Retirement. The various stages of the Bill which will be brought in, if the House agrees to the Resolution, will be taken as first Order on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week.

Mr. Attlee: There are three points on which I should like information. First, is it proposed to suspend the 10 o'Clock Rule on any of these evenings? Second, on Thursday the Opposition propose to put down a Motion on the subject of Christmas food supplies. Third, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give time before the House rises for a debate on the federation proposals in relation to Central Africa. Failing that, it seems that the only opportunity would be on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Friday. We should like to ask for a day next week.

Mr. Crookshank: I hope I have got all that, Sir. We propose, for the convenience of the House to suspend the Rule on Monday to make sure of getting the Festival Gardens Bill, because that must be passed before Christmas as the right hon. Gentleman knows; on Tuesday, we propose to suspend the Rule for the Home Guard Bill Committee stage, as we understand there may be some Amendments put down, and on Wednesday as a precaution. I do not think any of the business that day is particularly controversial. It sounds rather more than it really is.
On the second point, I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Motion on Thursday about Christmas food supplies. On the third point, I am sorry, but I do not think it will be possible to have a debate on anything on this Consolidated Fund Bill, which is an unusual interim Bill in that it covers only the actual Estimates which have been debated. It is not like the big Consolidated Fund Bills later in the


year. However, after it has been taken, there would be time for whatever business is most suitable to be put down. I will certainly review what the right hon. Gentleman has said and see whether we can arrange a debate during one of the days on the subject he has mentioned.

Mr. Attlee: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman realises that there is a great deal of interest in the question of Central African federation, and I hope that he will be able to arrange time for it.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir, I hope so, on one of the other days, but not on Friday. I do not think that that would be a suitable day at all for discussing the matter.

Mr. James Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman says not on Friday but some other day. Will he make sure there is ample opportunity for the House to discuss this matter? Does he propose to give a day in the week following next week?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot say just now exactly what the arrangements will be, but I have noted the views of the Opposition on the matter.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman has given the business for Monday as the Second Reading of the Japanese Treaty of Peace Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. Is it proposed that ratification of the Treaty, which the House has a right to consider, should be taken on another day, or is ratification supposed to be merged in this debate? It is not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the actual ratification does not have to be debated in the House. It is not for me to say what would be in order on the Bill on Monday, but I rather assumed that a general review could take place. It is for Mr. Speaker to say. It is for that reason that we allotted up to 9 o'Clock that evening.

Mr. Morrison: I am open to correction if I am wrong, but my recollection is that when a Treaty Bill, and especially an important Treaty like this, is taken, the Opposition, or any other important section of the House, has a right, by

tradition, to require a debate before ratification is made by the Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that that is Parliamentary practice. While we are open for discussion on the point. I do not want the rights of the House to be overlooked.

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman can be quite assured that I am as jealous of the rights of the House of Commons as he or anybody else is; but I am not sure that he is right in what he says on this particular matter. However, that can be looked into. If a wide debate is possible on the matter it probably will deal with the situation which he has in mind.

Mr. T. Driberg: Is not part of a day quite inadequate for the discussion of something so important as the Japanese Peace Treaty? Should there not be at least one full day allotted to it? Since the Rule is being suspended on Monday, could not the debate on the Japanese Peace Treaty Bill run the whole of the day's Sitting?

Mr. Crookshank: I understood, through the usual channels, that up to 9 o'Clock was considered suitable by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I am only trying to be as accommodating as I can on this matter, I thought that in falling in with the wishes of the Opposition I had done all that was possible.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Motion standing in my name and the names of some 50 hon. Members on this side of the House, concerning war-damaged towns and cities? In view of the fact that, subsequently, the Government put down a similar Motion, and the non-controversial nature of my Motion, will the right hon. Gentleman give us time for a debate upon it?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot hold out any hope of giving time for the Motion. The hon. Gentleman will remember that before we rise there will be a day on the Motion for the Adjournment, on which it might be possible for the subject of the Motion to be suitably discussed.

Mr. John Paton: May I appeal to the Leader of the House about Monday's Business? There is very deep anxiety among many Members, on all sides of


the House—it is by no means confined to the Opposition side—about some of the aspects of the Japanese Peace Treaty. I think it is a shocking misuse of the powers of the Government to seek to limit that debate in the manner proposed. I should have thought that the Leader of the House himself would be aware of the extreme importance of the matters involved to great sections of the industries of this country, to mention no other. I hope that he will be willing, in view of the strong feeling expressed, to think about this matter again.

Mr. Crookshank: All I can say is that it is rather difficult to fit in all this business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there is a lot to be got through next week. I managed to find time, at the request of the Opposition, for a debate on the Christmas food supplies. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen do not want that and would prefer to discuss Japan, we can perhaps come to some other arrangement, but these matters were agreed. The hon. Gentleman appeals to me, but I think he might also appeal to some of his right hon. Friends.

Mr. W. W. Astor: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make any further statement on the economic position of the country before the House rises?

Mr. Crookshank: I do not know. I am only dealing with the business for next week at the moment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While I appreciate that there will be no difficulties on Monday because the Rule is being suspended, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be good enough, before Monday, to look up the Ruling given to me by the previous Speaker when I raised this matter in the last Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will direct my attention to that Ruling, I will gladly look at it.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that some constituencies in the textile industry, such as mine, are already beginning to feel unfair Japanese competition, and can something be done about it?

Mr. I. Mikardo: Is the Leader of the House aware—I am sure he is—that he is leading the House and not merely the usual channels, and in considering what time should be devoted to the discussion of the Japanese Peace Treaty Bill, will he take into account the obvious feeling of back bench Members on both sides of the House that a debate of five and a half hours is insufficient for a matter of this great importance?

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he intends to present to the House legislation which is necessary because of the expiration of the B.B.C. licence? Only 15 days are left before the House adjourns.

Mr. Crookshank: The Postmaster-General will make a statement on that very shortly.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will any statistical information be supplied to us about the Festival Gardens before we have the debate on Monday? Will the suspension of the Rule be for a limited period or for as long as may be necessary to consider the proposals in the Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: As far as I know, it will be unlimited suspension. As regards the other point, I should have to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works because I do not know.

Mr. Frederick Lee: In view of the serious economic situation, is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to arrange for a day on which we can debate the manpower proposals of the Ministry of Labour before the House is put to silence?

Mr. Douglas Jay: If the right hon. Gentleman is in such difficulty about time next week, why cannot he reconsider the Government's obviously mistaken decision not to give us another week before Christmas?

Mr. Crookshank: I am not in any difficulty about time. Instead of having a discussion all day on the Japanese Peace Treaty Bill, I offered to accede to the request of the Leader of the Opposition about Christmas bonuses If I had not done that, this would not have arisen.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have discussed business very thoroughly.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. There is a Motion, Sir, on the Order Paper about whose fate I wish to inquire now from the Leader of the House.

[That the Standing Orders of the House be so amended as to allow the Scottish Grand Committee to meet in Scotland during the Parliamentary Recess to consider the housing problem in Scotland.]

Am I in order in asking now about the fate of the Motion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member would be in order in asking his question if there was time, but there have been a lot of questions already and we must get on with the business of the House.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order. I should like your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The Motion is on the Order Paper for today and I hope to have the opinion of the Leader of the House on it. Last week I rose at the same time to ask about another Motion. Is it your judgment that we should not ask questions of the Leader of the House? I should like you to tell me what opportunities we have of doing so when we have urgent matters of public business on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I have to use discretion in the matter so that the business of the House shall not be unduly delayed.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, to persist in the policy of such an extended Christmas Recess when it is obviously against the wishes of the House and the interests of the country as a whole?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The adjournment of the House is entirely a matter for the House itself and not one for me.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I want to ask, for guidance, Mr. Speaker, how I could be in order in raising the matter of Scottish housing for discussion by the Scottish Grand Committee during the Recess? How can I put it to the Leader of the House and remain in order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member can put that question now.

If he addresses a query to the Leader of the House, I have no doubt that he will get an answer, but at the moment there is other business before the House. Sir. David Maxwell Fyfe.

Mr. Crookshank: On a point of order. I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you were going to call me on a further point of business.

Mr. Speaker: That is true. I have had some notice of that. Mr. Crookshank.

QUESTIONS ON NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (SELECT COMMITTEE)

Mr. Crookshank: I wish to make a statement about Questions on nationalised industries—

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I understood you to call further business, Mr. Speaker. Should not your Ruling, which applied to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and myself, also apply to the Leader of the House? I respectfully suggest that there seems to be a different Ruling because of a different personality.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: It is not a different Ruling at all. What has happened is that I got some notice that a statement was coming, but it was not definite. If it had been definite, I would have called the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that the Leader of the House wishes to make a statement about Questions for the enlightenment of the House as a whole, and I think it would be for the benefit of the House that we should have it.

Mr. Crookshank: I am much obliged. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if it is my fault in any way, but a Motion is to be put down on the Order Paper and I thought the House would like to be told how it arises.
As I informed the House on 12th November, the Government feel that sufficient experience has now been gained of the problem of how to deal with Parliamentary Questions regarding the nationalised industries to justify the setting up of a Select Committee; but I must


make it plain that this is irrespective of the wider review of the nationalised industries which the Government intend to undertake. This will, of course, include a review of their relationship to Ministers and Departments and to this House, and will take time, since it will have regard to the particular needs and circumstances of the individual industries. Meanwhile, the Government consider that, pending this larger review, the immediate problem of the information which should be made available to Parliament should be remitted to a Select Committee; they will accordingly place a Motion on the Order Paper proposing the appointment by the House of a Select Committee with the following terms of reference:
To consider the present methods by which the House of Commons is informed of the affairs of the nationalised industries and to report what changes, having regard to the provisions laid down by Parliament in the relevant statutes, may be desirable in these methods.

Mr. Morrison: We have no comment to make on the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, of which he has given notice. I presume that it would be a reasonable assumption that in the course of the investigations by the Select Committee it would hear, or be willing to hear—one can assume that—both the Ministers concerned and the chairmen of the boards of the publicly-owned industries so that their views, together with other views, may be before the Committee.

Mr. Crookshank: When the Select Committee is set up it will be for it to decide whom it wants to see and when and how to proceed with its business.

BILLS PRESENTED

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARIES) BILL

"to amend certain provisions of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, relating to Parliamentary Under-Secretaries," presented by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Stuart and Major Sir Thomas Dugdale; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (FOYLE FISHERIES) BILL

"to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to legislate with respect to fisheries in the Foyle area and related matters," presented by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; supported by Mr. Llewellyn and Mr. J. Foster; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — HOME GUARD BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of the Bill which is now before the House is to establish the Home Guard on a voluntary and limited basis in time of peace. I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I start by giving some general comment on the Bill itself and then outline the structure and role of the Force proposed, together with an indication of the Regulations which will be consequential to the passage of the Bill. I then propose to say something of the reasons which have convinced His Majesty's Government of the necessity of introducing the Bill at this time.
With regard to the Bill itself, I think the majority of hon. Members will agree that it is a comparatively simple and straightforward Measure. There will, I know, be many comments concerning the detail of the Bill on the Committee stage, but as it is drafted the Bill follows closely the lines of the Defence Regulation which was put before the House in 1940 and which preceded the creation of the Local Defence Volunteers, which ultimately became the Home Guard.
The Bill is confined to matters of broad principle, but there is a general provision in Clause 1 (3) enabling details consequential on the passage of the Bill to be tabled and placed before Parliament, subsequent to its passage, in the form of Orders and Regulations.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: Will those Orders be of such a nature that they can be debated or prayed against?

Mr. Head: I am coming to that in a moment.
The House, I know, is both anxious and to some extent resentful of this particular method of legislation, but in the case of Bills dealing with the Armed Forces I think it is essential to use this procedure. Not only do I think it is justified in this case, but there is ample precedent for this system of legislation. I

draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that in framing the Bill in this way we are only following the procedure which was adopted in the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and in the Army Reserve Act, 1950.
Most of these Regulations which will be laid before the House—and I will outline them in general terms in a moment—are almost entirely concerned with subjects which normally would be contained either in Army Council Instructions or in Army Orders. They can be subject both to Parliamentary Questions and to an Adjournment debate. The Bill as at present laid before the House differs from the old Regulations in that no powers whatever of compulsion are contained within the Bill.

Mr. George Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Regulations can be subject to an Adjournment debate. Is that what he really means or does he mean that they can be prayed against?

Mr. Head: I meant exactly what I said—"Adjournment debate."
No powers of compulsion whatever are contained in the Bill. The Force proposed is entirely on a voluntary basis, and it goes so far that there are no penalties which can be given against a man who does not turn up for the execution of his duty. The only time in peace when a member of this voluntary organisation is subject to military law is while he is actually engaged in training or exercises, or in the execution of part-time duty or when he is mustered.
The Bill contains in Clause 3 (2, c) a definition of the conditions under which mustering can take place. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that mustering can only take place if it is justified for
resisting an actual or apprehended attack or … taking part in measures for dealing with the effects of an attack.
That is to say, mustering is entirely a war-time measure.
Hon. Members will, perhaps, want some added explanation of what is meant by mustering in the event of war. It is not proposed, and never would be proposed, that the whole of the Force in war-time should be mustered for any period. The only conceivable situation in which such a step could take place would be if there


were a threat of some very large scale seaborne invasion. The question of mustering is, in effect, limited, and is intended to be limited, to measures to deal with an immediate and local crisis: that is to say, if in some area an attack had occurred, it would be in the power of the Commander, U.K. Land Forces, or the G.O.C.-in-C. concerned, to muster some section of the Home Guard to deal with that particular critical situation. But it will only be used in a period of crisis and it will not be used over a protracted period.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am not clear about subsection (2), where both conditions have to be complied with. That is to say, the men must be both being trained and mustered—or should it be either one or the other?—before they will come under military law.

Mr. Head: I hoped I had made it clear that in time of peace, the volunteer in the Home Guard, when taking part in training or exercises, is under military law. He is not under military law when he is living at home and does not turn up for exercises. The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that if a man does not turn up, there is nothing in the Regulations which enables his commanding officer to take any disciplinary action.

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not certain that the existing words will suffice.

Mr. Head: The hon. and learned Member knows more about words than I do, but the remainder of the House seemed to understand my meaning. When mustered to meet a critical situation, the members of this organisation would be subject to military law.
I point out also, in my references to the Bill, that there is a special and small Clause to ensure that any member of Parliament joining the Home Guard will be secured from becoming unseated. Unless this Clause had been introduced, a Member of Parliament joining the Home Guard might have been capable of being unseated for holding an office of profit under the Crown. I assure all hon. Members that there is no danger whatever in their approaching a recruiting office. Indeed, this safeguard about recruiting offices will, I am sure, be some assurance to the hon. Member for

Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who had a somewhat unfortunate time in those institutions.
As I have said, the Bill contains provision for the introduction of Regulations. I think the House will want to know the general details of the Regulations which we propose to introduce consequential to the Bill. I assure the House that we have worked out the broad lines of these Regulations. A good deal of detailed work remains to be done and that will be done in consultation with the Ministries concerned and also in close consultation with the Joint Advisory Council. In the conception which we propose for the Home Guard we have kept the numbers as low as possible. We have kept it, consistent with the tasks they have to perform, to the minimum numbers which we think capable, first, of fulfilling those tasks at short notice and, second, of being capable of rapid expansion if and when the need arises.
This figure, which I will give to the House, has been arrived at by accepting two different states of readiness for the Home Guard. As we see it the task of the Home Guard, in general, will either be the guarding of vulnerable points, particularly key industrial factories making important components for war, the guarding of aerodromes and kindred installations, and assistance of the Civil Defence organisation in the event of heavy air attack.
We have considered the various requirements of these commitments and we have found that the best solution to meet these requirements was to draw a line approximately between Flamborough Head and Selsey Bill, which, in its passage from North to South, covers the county boundaries. We have decided that east of that line the Home Guard battalions will be raised to effective strength and that commitment will be for about 100,000 men and that area will exclude the area of London. The remainder of England, Wales and Scotland will be put on a different state of readiness.
It is in that area that the main provision will be for vulnerable points and for that area we propose that the Home Guard battalions shall be on a cadre basis and that cadre basis we have estimated at approximately 50 men per battalion. These cadres in the remainder of the area will take all precautionary steps in order


to make them capable of fulfilling their task at short notice. They will be issued with, and store, arms. They will study the tasks they would have to fulfil on mobilisation and they will prepare plans in the light of that study which will enable them quickly to mobilise and fulfil the tasks they are allotted under the scheme. This commitment for the remainder of the country will amount to between 20,000 and 25,000 men.
In addition to the total of those two commitments, we have allowed ourselves some margin over and above so that when all the tasks, especially in the Eastern areas, are studied we can, in accordance with further study of those tasks, and in accordance with recruiting, exceed that number by a small margin—but it is not considerable.

Mr. Wigg: Will these men be allowed to take rifles and live ammunition home?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Member will allow me, I am coming to that in a few moments and I will outline the conditions of the Home Guard. The question will be fully answered, but I think it better to do so in the course of my speech.
We have allowed ourselves some margin. I think I should tell the House that, on the assumption that this voluntary Force was recruited to full strength and making all allowance for such things as hirings and allowances and for the Home Guard itself, the absolute maximum cost in a full year—which, of course, will not be next year—would amount to about £2,500,000.
The tasks of this Force, as I have said, will be largely confined to the defence of vulnerable points and aerodromes and to assistance to Civil Defence. I know very well that in the House there has been a certain amount of talk regarding the possibility of combining the Home Guard and the Civil Defence organisation so that one could have a co-ordinated Force with the ability to switch from one requirement to the other. I am aware that that idea has certain attractions, but I can assure the House that we have gone into it very carefully and, after due consideration, found it unworkable. Hon. Members may say that even this limited recruitment of the Home Guard will interfere with recruitment and the gradual building up of Civil Defence.
I do not think that suggestion is valid, because I think it has been the experience so far that many men have been undecided as to whether they should join the Civil Defence or the Home Guard because they have not known whether or not any Home Guard would be created in peace-time. That uncertainty is now resolved and I believe the fact that that uncertainty is removed will stimulate recruiting for the Home Guard and also make their own position quite clear to potential volunteers who are uncertain about which Force they should join.
As I said when the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) interrupted, the House will wish to know about the general conditions of the Force we propose. Any male can join this Force entirely voluntarily between the ages of 18 and 65. The following will not be eligible: members of the Regular Forces of the Crown, members of Sections A, B or D of the Army Reserve, members of the Supplementary Reserve and members of the Territorial Army.
The following are eligible to join without any restriction whatever: Regular Army Reserve Officers, officers of the rank of colonel and above over 58 and lieut.-colonels and below over 53; members of the Territorial Army Reserve of Officers over the age of 51; and all members of the Z Reserve who are over 46. In addition, I would like to make clear to the House that any of those I have mentioned who are under those age limits may also join this Force with War Office approval.
I stress that because it is to be hoped that many officers and Z reservists under those age limits will join this voluntary Force. I can assure those who are considering it that the War Office will be most generous in giving permission. Any officer or man who is not immediately liable for Reserve recall will, so far as possible, be given that permission and I am convinced that their presence in a Force of this type would be of the greatest value, especially when those officers and men have had experience in the last war.

Mr. Shackleton: And Class G of the Air Force?

Mr. Head: This includes Class Z. As far as the Navy and the Air Force are


concerned, I cannot make an announcement today, but that will be made clear. I would stress, however, that the joining of this voluntary Home Guard Force does not absolve a man from eventual liability for his Reserve service. But I would point out, also, that a man who joins this Force and has not an immediate liability for Reserve recall but might stay with the Force for, say, six months after the outbreak of war during peace-time and in the early stages of war, would have fulfilled a most important task in the Home Guard.
Service in this voluntary Force will be for two years on engagement and it can be extended for one year at a time. Discharge—and this again stresses that it is an entirely voluntary conception—may be obtained by any volunteer consequent on his making application in writing to his commanding officer and the elapsing of one month from that date. As far as compulsory discharge is concerned, if any volunteer is considered unsatisfactory by his commanding officer he may be dismissed from the Force under the Regulation, "Services no longer required." No man in the Force, except when mustered, will be called upon to live away from home, to serve full time, or to be subject to military law, except when actually training.
There will be no pay whatever in the Force. Allowances will be granted on the general lines of those granted to Civil Defence personnel. They will cover subsistence and disablement and they will also cover such matters as travelling, motor mileage, and so on. All these allowances will be on a flat rate irrespective of rank; there will be no differentiation between the private and the colonel.
Administration of the Force will be by commands through the Territorial Associations. It is our aim to ensure that administration should be done to the largest extent possible by commands of Territorial Associations, and it is not proposed to build up any organisation within the War Office for centralised control. That, I think, will be popular among the Force itself and will ensure that there is no large organisation of form-filling paper work, "red tape" or staff. Some allowance will be made to the Force for a permanent paid administrative staff, as in the case of the

last war, in the shape of the adjutant quarter-master and P.S.I. storeman for battalions raised and the operational command of the Force will be carried out by the Commander of U.K. Land Forces through commands.
I am against having any fixed maximum for training. I think hon. Members will agree that if we stated a maximum it might inspire the over-zealous commanding officer of a Home Guard to attempt to reach the actual target maximum. For that reason we have avoided doing that, but have laid down a minimum period of training over a long period of three months—to avoid any difficulty which might happen if the period were a week or a month—in respect of harvest, snowbound conditions, and so on. It has been laid down that every Home Guard formation shall carry out 15 hours' training per quarter—just over one hour a week—

Mr. E. Shinwell: It is as much as the T.A.

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman says it is as much as the T.A., but the T.A. have much greater commitments and I would point out that this is an entirely voluntary Force.
I do not believe that those who volunteer for the Force would wish it to become a farce in which they did not carry out their training properly. I am not at all anxious about the fulfilment of this modest commitment, but I am anxious that there might be too much zeal and too much training. Hon. Members will see that in this limited amount of training, the limited numbers proposed and the voluntary nature of the Force, there is no danger of any considerable interference with industry or with people's normal work.
Turning to facilities for training, the Territorial Army, as far as possible, will make available ranges and drill halls, but I am aware, as many hon. Members who are interested will be aware, that in certain areas there is congestion within the accommodation available for the Territorial Army and in the agricultural areas of the Eastern counties the drill halls available are too scattered and few to compete with the demand. Therefore, provision will be made for the hiring of local halls, and so forth, to facilitate training.
I wish to say a word about equipment. Every man will be equipped with a rifle or, where applicable, a sten gun and these arms, I assure the hon. Member for Dudley, will be stored locally and not taken home by the men.

Mr. Wigg: Under whose control?

Mr. Head: They will be stored locally under the control of the Home Guard organisation. I made some reference to P.S.I. storemen. They will be responsible for these arms; and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no sinister motive in this Force.
The arms will be stored centrally in just the same way as in the Territorial Army, and there is no question whatever of men with arms being scattered all over the countryside. They will also be issued with a steel helmet and an arm band. I would like to able to announce today that we shall give to this Force battledress, greatcoats and boots, and I know equally well that the Home Guard themselves would like to have them. But the object of this Force, as I shall come to in a moment, is to increase the preparedness of our Territorial Forces; and if the issue of uniform were made at the present time, it would to some extent be defeating our object, because it would be made at the expense of the stores now earmarked for the rapid mobilisation of the Territorial Army.
It is our intention, as soon as the situation permits, to issue the Home Guard with uniform. But until that moment arrives the Home Guard will be given, in lieu, an allowance of £2 12s. per year to defray damage done to their own clothes when carrying out training and their duties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think that is unreasonable, and I also hope that at a reasonably early date it will be supplanted by the issue of uniforms.
Hon. Members and would-be recruits will wish to know when registration for this Force will start. I am quite certain that whatever hon. Members may think of the Bill, they will agree that it is important to start the registration of volunteers as soon as possible after the passage of the Bill through the House. It is proposed that this will start after the preliminaries have been completed, and that should be very early in the new year—

Mr. Wigg: Whether the House is sitting or not?

Mr. Head: I do not believe that it is very relevant to the recruitment of volunteers whether or not the House is sitting. I do not anticipate that some recruits, burning with enthusiasm to volunteer, will say, "I must wait until the House is sitting."
I am afraid that I have wearied the House to some extent with a great deal of administrative details.

Mr. Shinwell: Go on. It is the first time we have heard of it.

Mr. Head: I did explain that that was following precedent in these matters. I have so far as possible outlined to the House the intention of the terms and Regulations we propose to introduce subsequent to the passage of the Bill. But there are many hon. Members, especially on the other side of the House who will say, I think, "Why are you introducing this Measure now?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can see that my intuition has not failed me. They will say. "Why go beyond the stage to which the late Government got, of earmarking battalion commanders for this Force?"
The first point I would make, very strongly, is that the introduction of this Measure is not because His Majesty's Government think that war is any more likely—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member will contain his impatience I will elaborate a little more on that. I think all hon. Members will agree that if war does come—and pray heaven it does not—we would be complacent not to realise that it would come with great suddenness. We cannot expect a long period of ultimatums, and so forth, nor on a long period of what was termed the "phoney war." Therefore, hon. Members will agree that this country must have the ability to defend itself if war should come very suddenly.
They will, I think, also agree, it is an unescapable fact, that the present foreign situation is not one in which any Government could find it easy to retain a large number of prepared Forces in this country. Therefore I say, quite apart from other matters which I will raise, that the existence in this country of a Force of the nature I have outlined, capable of rapid expansion in war-time, is a very considerable asset in that respect.


But there is a more important reason than that for taking this measure at the present time.
I am convinced that the absence of a Force of the type I have outlined in this country does to a large extent stultify the steps which the late Government pursued, and which we are continuing, in order to increase our military preparedness now.

Mr. Wigg: Nonsense!

Mr. Head: The hon. Member says "Nonsense," but I hope he will do me the honour of listening to what I have to say. For the last two or three years what has been the policy of our late Government? It has been to call up the majority of the young men in this country years, and to put them on a liability of three-and-a-half years'. Reserve service. A major portion of these men went into the Army. Why? What is the justification for that use of manpower and for our very high expenditure on re-armament?
I would say to hon. Members that the main justification is that we are creating a Territorial Army which, through National Service and their part-time training, and the preparation of their arms, is capable of mobilisation and preparing to fight at very short notice. Hon. Members will agree that that is the main object of the policy of the Government in the past, and it is entirely different from the old system whereby it took a long time before the Territorial Army could mobilise. That is our effort and it has cost us a lot in manpower and money.
May I now call the attention of hon. Members to the likely situation if war suddenly came? Hon. Members will surely agree that we would be complacent and foolish if we did not expect that at the outbreak of war there would be a series of what one might term "incidents"—for one thing, sabotage. There are, and we cannot avoid it, a great many potential saboteurs in the country. A few explosions in factories would lead to a widespread demand for guards at vulnerable points. We cannot ignore that; it is a fact.
Secondly, with the present development of methods we should be extremely complacent also entirely to disregard the

possibility of even small-scale parachute raids on aerodromes and other important targets. We cannot dismiss that. Thirdly, we have inevitably to face the possibility of large-scale attacks on our cities, and in consequence, a demand by the Civil Defence authorities for assistance from military troops.
I want to direct the attention of the House to this point. Supposing war suddenly came upon us, and suppose the Home Guard was constituted in exactly the same way as the Government propose, and as it now is. For the first three or four weeks or more on the outbreak of war, the Home Guard, as at present constituted, would be engaged in forming, in getting volunteers and issuing arms and preparing itself. The demand for guards for vulnerable points and for aerodromes and from the Civil Defence authorities would have to be met. Who is going to meet it? The answer to that question—and of this I am absolutely convinced, because it happened in the last war—is that it would be met by Territorial Army divisions.
With those Territorial Army divisions we have National Service, we have three and a half years' part-time training and we have a re-armament programme to enable them to prepare to fight rapidly. Is not it a negation of that policy to accept that if war comes suddenly they will be scattered all over the country guarding vulnerable points, helping Civil Defence—

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: May I ask—

Mr. Head: I will give way after I have finished making this point. I suggest most seriously to the House that if we continue on that policy the money and the manpower we are expending on that high rate of preparedness is forfeit, because of this very liability; and I say, therefore, that the Force which we are proposing to form is an essential link in our general preparedness.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of how long he thinks it would take to make the Home Guard which he envisages effective for the purpose he has just outlined?

Mr. Head: The whole point of the re-organisation I have outlined and the


whole basis on which we have worked it out is that they can immediately fulfil that commitment, and free the Territorial Army to mobilise.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean within a matter of weeks of being established?

Mr. Head: I am saying that the Force we are now proposing, and hope to recruit, will be able to do that at once. That is the object of the Force and the justification for it. It is to free those Territorial divisions which we have created at such expense and effort. That is, in my opinion, the main justification for this particular Measure.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a variety of happenings which may occur. What he does not deal with is the use of the Home Guard in case of strikes. He himself, in a speech in this House on 13th September, 1950, advocated the forming of a Home Guard to deal with civil disturbances and strikes. Why does he not deal with that point now?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Member will look up the words in HANSARD where mention strikes I will listen to him, but my recollection is that I never mentioned strikes.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman said:
… there will be a serious danger of an outbreak by Communist sympathisers of sabotage and attempts to incite civil disturbance and strikes."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 13th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1233.]
And he advocated the formation of a Home Guard along the pattern of that in France to break strikes.

Hon. Members: Nonsense!

Mr. Head: If I may say so, the hon. Member, so far as the creation of this Force is concerned, has got a slightly dirty mind—

Mr. Wigg: So has the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Head: I can assure him that there is absolutely no intention in the creation of this Force of forming any strikebreaking unit. It is, I think, only fair to myself to point out that the excerpt quoted by the hon. Member was dealing with the outbreak of war—if and when

war comes. I do say, and I repeat again—

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Head: If the hon. Member will let me reply to him, what I am saying is that this Force is to be created to deal with the difficulties of a situation which will arise in the event of war. I do not retract from anything I have said, and the hon. Gentleman is putting his head in the sand. He should realise that if we get into a war we have to face the likelihood of sabotage, and the likelihood that some elements in this country would strive to create unrest. What I am saying is that it is important to have a military Force prepared to fulfil this task and thus free the Territorial divisions.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Head: No; I do not think there is very much point in my giving way. I would say this to hon. Members and I would underline it very strongly: whatever they may think about this Force it is defensive in nature and deterrent in effect. I do not think that anybody can be disturbed by the proposition which the Government are putting to the House or that the Government can in any way be accused of being aggressive.
Hon. Members have often accused the War Office of preparing for the next war in terms of the last. The last war started with a very long period of "phoney" war. It is my contention that the existing organisation of the Home Guard is preparing for the next war in terms of the last, and I think it is very complacent and unwise. To meet the event of war occurring suddenly, we should organise such a Force in time to be able to fulfil these functions, and that, in our view can only be done by accepting the limited scheme which I have put before the House.
This new and entirely voluntary Force will be the heir to the example and standard established by its predecessor during the last war, and I think the House would like me once again to pay tribute to the selfless service which the Home Guard gave in the last war in rigorous and often very wearisome conditions. I feel confident that, after the passage of this Bill, the new Force will emulate and perhaps even excel the attainments


of the old Home Guard. I can assure the House that I am absolutely convinced of the necessity for this Measure, and, for myself, I count it a privilege that it has been my task to commend it to the House.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? It is not a question of a dirty mind, but one of the Home Guard being concerned in the event of industrial unrest in peace-time. Would the Home Guard be mustered or called upon to take any part? May I have a categorical assurance? There is no question of a dirty mind.

Mr. Head: I am sorry, but I did not wish to make an all-embracing remark about a dirty mind, and, in that respect, I have made no charge of having a dirty mind against the hon. Member. Indeed, I am obliged to him for his question. The mustering of the Home Guard can only be done to meet an apprehended or actual attack. This is a peace-time Measure, and there is no arrangement whatever for the mustering of the Home Guard in peace-time.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War began by describing this Bill as simple and straightforward. I think it is simple, but certainly not straightforward. I now discover that, however simple the Bill is in its presentation, the explanations given by the right hon. Gentleman are very complicated indeed. They are far from simple, and I wonder that, in the presentation of this Bill, more detailed information was not given to the House.
If some of the specific items mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman had been included in the Bill, we should certainly have had more time for their consideration, and I am bound to say that, so far as my recollection goes, it is something in the nature of a precedent, except in cases of emergency. To introduce a Bill of a skeleton character, which is merely the framework of proposals which are in contemplation by the Department, seems to me to be quite unnecessary. After all, hon. Members are entitled to be furnished with a little more information when a Bill is presented, and I must

protest against the technique adopted by the Government in this case. However, we have to make the best of the situation, and that is what we propose to do.
The first matter to which I would direct the attention of hon. Members is the subject of delegated legislation. I always understood that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite resented the introduction of legislation of a delegated character. Indeed, I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself did not make many speeches on this score, or on this head. At any rate, some of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they sat on these benches, made many speeches on this subject and always appeared to dislike delegated legislation.

Mr. Head: I entirely agree that a great many speeches were made on this subject of delegated legislation, but not in regard to provisions for the Armed Forces of the Crown. In every case, we supported legislation concerning the Armed Forces of the Crown, and there is a precedent for this particular Measure.

Mr. Shinwell: That only indicates a difference in sentiment. When it is a matter affecting the economy of the country, social conditions and the like, hon. Members opposite resent delegated legislation, but, when it is a matter of militarism, there must be no question about it.

Mr. Head: Mr. Head indicated dissent.

Mr. Shinwell: That is, as I understand it, exactly where we are. It is a difference of outlook, and it is as well that it should be placed on record.
I want to know something about this form of delegated legislation. I have looked at the Bill, and the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman seem to me to be unconvincing. As I understood him, and he will correct me if I am wrong, he said that, as regards this form of legislation, the matters may be raised in the form of Questions and on Adjournment debates. Do I represent the right hon. Gentleman fairly? Very well.
Surely that is not enough. After all, to ask Questions in the House and to get the fatuous answers which we have already experienced from the Front Bench opposite is certainly insufficient, and, as for raising matters on the Motion for the Adjournment, the right hon. Gentleman


knows that we cannot raise questions involving legislation on Adjournment debates. I do not know whether he is already aware of that, but, if not, he will learn in time. However, I am not concerned with what the right hon. Gentleman knows; I am concerned with the rights of the House.

Mr. Head: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The whole point of this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Minister of Defence, knows full well, is that, whenever such legislation is introduced for the Armed Forces of the Crown—and it is not a question of militarism on the part of the Government at all—it has been found impossible to make it subject to the negative Resolution procedure, for the reason that it concerns a mass of detailed administrative instructions which are normally given by Army Council Instructions and Army Orders. If the right hon. Gentleman were Minister of Defence, introducing a Bill like this, he would be in complete agreement with me.

Mr. Shinwell: I am anxious to yield to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to interrupt me. This matter must be cleared up to the satisfaction of hon. Members.
Two distinct phases are contemplated. One is the registration of men, the congregation of men in certain places—and I shall refer to that subject a little later—and the other is the actual mustering of the Force. When it comes to the mustering of the Force, which means the embodiment of the Force for the purpose of dealing with an attack, obviously, hon. Members on this side—and I am venturing to interpret their views—would not seek to introduce Prayers or to deal with this form of delegated legislation in the normal fashion.
If we are subject to aggression, obviously, we have got to meet it, but before mustering takes effect, surely we have a right to adopt the methods of the Prayer, and the other devices so frequently employed by hon. Members opposite when the late Government was in power, for ensuring that the men concerned are being properly treated and that the rights and privileges of hon. Members are maintained?
I am not at all satisfied that we would agree to permit even an Army Council

Instruction, and goodness knows how many Army Council Instructions are devised almost every day of the week, of which hon. Members are not aware, except some few who are interested in the subject. I would never agree that an Army Council Instruction which affected men not actually embodied or mustered should not be subject to some consideration by hon. Members and I am afraid that this matter will have to be considered very seriously on the Committee stage, and I give the right hon. Gentleman warning.
The right hon. Gentleman, having dealt in his speech with some of the details which are absent from the Bill, then proceeded to give some reasons why the Bill has been promoted. His reasons were unconvincing, and I will give the reasons why that is so. No doubt my hon. Friends behind me will fill in the gaps. First of all, what is the actual reason for promoting the Bill at this time? Does the right hon. Gentleman apprehend danger from overseas? His answer is in the negative, and, indeed, he is fortified by the view expressed by the Prime Minister some time ago in the defence debate.
When I gave the figures of Soviet strength, the right hon. Gentleman considered, from my observations, that I was assuming that an attack was apprehended. Of course, I meant nothing of the sort. If no danger is imminent—and we are all delighted to know that it is so, and we hope that it will continue—why the registration, why the training of these men? Is it necessary to form this Force at this time? In our view, this Measure is mistimed.
The late Government did agree, and it is on the record, that a Home Guard Force should be raised in the event of an emergency, and I quite agree about that. I agree that, if a Government, in their wisdom, decides that the time has arrived when a Force should be raised, because danger is not remote then, obviously they are quite entitled to do so, and I would agree with them. A Force which is only to be raised when there has been mobilisation of the Regular Forces or the Reserve would not be of very great value. The Force has to be raised in preparation for an emergency, but I am of the opinion that this is not the time.
On the other hand, even assuming that this is the time, my reply is that there


are adequate Forces at our disposal. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about that subject, and so I would like to fill the gap. Let us consider what we have got. Let us not forget that the position today is quite different from what it was in 1939; it is vastly different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, the situation is perhaps more dangerous, in some respects, but, on the other hand, the strength of our Armed Forces is far superior today to what it was in 1939. In the event of an emergency, there are far more men available. We have the Regular Forces, which by the way, are very much larger in numbers than they were in 1939, although, at that time, we had the Indian Army at our disposal. The Army today is larger than it was in 1939.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Does the right hon. Gentleman say that, relatively, we are stronger now, as compared with a potential enemy, than we were then?

Mr. Shinwell: I am giving the conclusion to which I have come, and I really think that we shall have to have an open defence debate to discuss some of these matters and have it out then. I do not want to have a defence debate now; I am merely illustrating my first point that, in terms of Regular strength, we are stronger today than in 1939, although our Forces are scattered all over the world.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman voted against conscription.

Mr. Shinwell: That is a senseless interruption. If hon. Members object to what I say, they can speak later; we will afford them facilities.
I have dealt with the Regular Army. We have had National Service men subject to a Territorial liability of three and a half years, and these men are coming back into the Territorial Army at the rate of 9,000 a month. Within the next 12 months, and I have not got the exact figure in mind—I have not been in touch with the War Office lately, and, may I say, having left the War Office and the Ministry of Defence, I am not going to either of those Departments to ask for information, and that I do not expect any leakages either—I should not be at all surprised if there were 150,000 or 200,000 ex-National Service men associated with the Territorial Army.
Then we have the Territorial Army which now numbers over 100,000, and we have something more. In 1939, we had no Class Z or Class G men. Now we have more than three million Class Z reservists, and last year about 200,000 or so of those men were called up for 15 days' training. If there is apprehension about some danger or emergency, that vast reservoir of men can be tapped, and, therefore, there appears to be no reason at all why at this time we should have got this Measure.
Before I pass on, I want to comment on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and supported by my hon. Friend below the Gangway. It is whether this Force is to be used in times of industrial dispute. I can understand that when the men are mustered—because war will have begun by that time—they must be used to deal with civilian disturbances. I would not object to that in war-time, but can we have a quite definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that before the men are mustered and in training they will not be used during an industrial dispute? If we are to have such an assurance, it is better to have it in the Bill for then we should know where we were, because I will tell right hon. and hon. Members opposite—though they may not like it—that I would not trust the Tory Party promise in the matter.

Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill which gives His Majesty's Government power to call up this Force in time of peace for the kind of task which he visualises. He is really chasing something which does not exist.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the intention was to begin registration in January, that the men were to be asked to enrol voluntarily, and that when they enrolled they were to be incorporated into 50 battalions, I think he said. These battalions would be scattered about from Flamborough Head to Selsey Bill which, by the way, looks very odd to me. Why this particular geographical situation unless an attack is apprehended? If the Force were to be used all over the country sporadically, and perhaps spasmodically, I could understand it, but why this particular geographical situation? What is


the reason for it unless an attack is apprehended?
I return to the point that the right hon. Gentleman has declared quite categorically that the men are to register. They will number 50 battalions, and no doubt their numbers will be added to from time to time, perhaps during the next year. But we do not know what the numbers will be in the course of 12 months. What I particularly want to know is whether these men can be called up at any time of industrial dispute. If the right hon. Gentleman replies in the negative, then I suggest it ought to be in the Bill so that we may know where we are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It does not matter if hon. Members interrupt me, because I intend to go on with my speech.
So much for that. I now want to deal with the point about competition with Civil Defence. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not believe that the raising of this Force would compete with Civil Defence. I am bound to say that I do not find that at all agreeable. I understand—and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the Civil Defence Force at this time numbers about 130,000 persons. That is far from adequate.
If we do apprehend an attack of some sort, surely the right thing would be to build up the Civil Defence organisation and then proceed to enrol the Home Guard. Having decided to enrol the Home Guard, men will decide to go into one or other Force. Quite clearly, therefore, it will mean that those who want to go into the Home Guard will do so, and, by the same reckoning will not go into Civil Defence, with the result that we shall get a small number in Civil Defence and a relatively small number in the Home Guard.
In fact, we shall be getting the worst of both worlds. It seems to me that that competition is hound to take place, and the first thing the Government ought to do is to build up the Civil Defence organisation until it is regarded as relatively adequate—I hope hon. Members will note my qualification—and then proceed with registration for the Home Guard.
I come now to the question of finance, and I am bound to say that I am very much astonished. May I direct the

attention of hon. Members to the Financial Memorandum? It says:
It is, therefore, not possible to estimate either the capital cost of setting up the force or the subsequent annual maintenance cost.
But, having made that statement in the Financial Memorandum, the right hon. Gentleman then told us what it is going to cost—£2,500,000 a year.

Mr. Head: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he did leave out some of the earlier words in the Financial Memorandum. It says that it is not possible to estimate the numbers who are going to join. I do not know how many members will be in this Force six months or a year from now. All I told the House was that on the assumption that it was recruited up to the absolute ceiling, for a full year it would cost x, but I have not the faintest idea of what it will cost.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what the ceiling is. Has he any idea of what it is going to be? I understood him to say that he intended to raise 100,000 in the first instance and a further 25,000 in various other parts of the country. But, surely, that is not the ceiling intended. Surely the ceiling must amount to many more than the numbers suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that the ultimate ceiling would be in the nature of 1,000,000. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me some idea?

Mr. Head: What I said was, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly states, that there would be 100,000 in one area and about 25,000 in another. We have allowed ourselves, on the peace-time basis, some margin to go beyond that figure. That maximum peace-time ceiling is about 170,000, but in peace-time we shall never go beyond that ceiling.

Mr. Shinwell: And that ceiling, on the assumption that it is reached, is to cost £2,500,000 in a full year. There is no provision for that in the Army Estimate for this year, and, therefore, we shall require a Supplementary Estimate which will increase the global expenditure on defence.
I understood we were not to increase our expenditure on defence, and that, having decided on a £4,700 million programme for three years, although we were not certain that we would spend the


money in that period—we might have a hangover—that was to be the limit. But now we are told, after the Government have been in office for only three weeks, that they are to increase military expenditure by another £2,500,000 in a full year. I suppose this is only the beginning. This is the Government which was going to cut down expenditure. Of course they are, but not on the military Services—that is a last consideration.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in addition to the £4,700 million, I was told in reply to a Question which I asked that the cost of steel has increased by £20 million?

Mr. Shinwell: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but that is another matter.
Now I want to come to the question of remuneration for these men. It is perfectly true that the patriotism of the Home Guard during the last war was beyond reproach. They enrolled and served voluntarily, and they asked for no remuneration of any kind, which was a credit to them. But, surely, the position is now rather different. The men are to be enrolled and are to undergo training equivalent to 60 hours a year—15 hours a quarter. An hour's training is one thing, but the men have to go to the place of training and return home, and I reckon that in all about two hours are involved.
The men are to receive no remuneration at all. Sixty hours a year means 60 drills a year, which is, in fact, more than the Territorial Army are expected to take in order to qualify for the £12 bounty. The Territorial Army are expected to undertake 30 drills a year, although it is true that they have to attend annual camp. I do not know whether it is intended that these men should attend annual camp.

Mr. Head: Mr. Head indicated dissent.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head but, at any rate, 60 hours a year seems to me to put these men on the same basis as the Territorial Army, and I cannot for the life of me understand why they should not receive some remuneration.
The right hon. Gentleman went a bit beyond this. After all, in days gone by, it was not unusual for hon. Members opposite when they sat on this side of the

House, to ask for more remuneration for men in the Forces. The right hon. Gentleman himself did so on many occasions. Indeed, he was never satisfied with what was done, and I look with eager and anxious expectancy to what the right hon. Gentleman will now do to raise the pay of the men in the Forces and to carry out some of the many suggestions he made when on this side of the House.
As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to go beyond what has been suggested in the pre-mustering period. When the men are mustered, he expects them to guard vulnerable points. Are they to guard these vulnerable points in their spare time, say, an hour or two a night? If they are to guard these vulnerable points, then, obviously, they are going to be employed most of the time—almost full-time, I would say. Unless we are to have vast numbers of men available to guard vulnerable points in this country, then, surely, it would require full-time employment. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly not given this any consideration at all. He does not know.

Mr. Head: The whole point is that in the event of war this Force will be expanded to something comparable to that in the last war—possibly up to 900,000. In those circumstances, supposing the right hon. Gentleman commanded a battalion of the Home Guard, he would have a Force of, say, about 1,000 men. [Laughter.] He would have two or three vulnerable points to guard, and he would make arrangements whereby a man in his battalion would be on duty to guard that point perhaps one night in eight or nine. He would volunteer to do it, and do it as it was done in the last war, but it would not be a full-time job.

Mr. Shinwell: I think we had better wait and see what happens. I should not be at all surprised to find these men undergoing this training and finding the training getting more intensive as time goes on, and, when mustered, asking for similar remuneration to that received by the Territorial Army.
There was, by the way, a little laughter about this Home Guard question in relation to myself. I happen to have been a member of the Palace of Westminster Home Guard and if I may say so—I do not know whether it is strictly in order


Mr. Deputy-Speaker—there were hon. Members in the Conservative Party, who had said a great deal about militarism in days gone by and had bragged of their military prowess and endurance and the like, who served with me in the Home Guard. All their activities and mine consisted of walking up and down the Terrace calling, "Who goes there?" and having innumerable cups of tea. They included some ex-brigadiers.
I am not going to refer to accommodation and similar matters, as I know my hon. Friends are anxious to speak, but I should like to conclude on one point. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that at this time it is desirable to proceed with a Bill of this character. I have already agreed that a time may come when it is essential to do so, but only the other day we had a speech from the Foreign Secretary indicating his desire to solve international problems by negotiations.
The United Nations organisation is meeting in Paris. There is a new atmosphere. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly not as a result of the advent of a Tory Government; but there is a new atmosphere in the world. President Truman's declaration and the statements made by a number of other people at the United Nations Assembly and the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in Washington and Ottawa all contributed to what I believe is an improved atmosphere—I will not rate it higher than that.
Surely this is a wrong time to proceed with a Bill which apprehends immediate danger. Moreover, what will our friends overseas say about this? We have large Forces. We have more than 10 Regular divisions overseas, we have more than three million Class Z Reservists, apart from Supplementary Reserves and the like, the Territorial Army, National Service men, and so on. Now we are to set up this Force at home to deal with airborne attack. Does this mean we regard Europe as expendable? Will that satisfy our friends in France, Belgium, Holland and elsewhere?
It seems to me to be the wrong thing to do at this time, and although it is not our intention to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, because we agree with the formation of a Home Guard in time

of emergency, or when an emergency is apprehended, we shall introduce Amendments on the Committee stage to insert into the Bill safeguards on behalf of the men concerned and, in addition, safeguards to protect the privileges and rights of hon. Members and to ensure that nothing is done by this Tory Government to increase militaristic fervour in some parts of the country.

5.3 p.m.

Brigadier Ralph Rayner: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I welcome this Bill with great pleasure. I was one of the first of Private Members to put down a Motion asking for the revival of the Home Guard, and I think this Bill will probably take us quite a long way.
I am not one of those who think war is inevitable. I think that Communism is a type of religious passion, and the way to quell a passion is to ennoble it and contain it and let it burn itself out. I feel that if in the next few years we can stop Communism from spreading and breaking out of its present borders we have a pretty good chance of a long period of peace. But today we have more legislation for more Defence Forces at more cost to the country, though my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has said that the cost of this Force will not be Very high because we are trying to revive a force which in the past was the best-equipped and best trained of any unpaid force in the whole world.
But I think it will be far more difficult to raise that Force on this occasion than it was last time. Last time every man who joined it had the great incentive of war, the feeling that by joining he was able to do something to save himself, his wife and his family and other people's families from having their backs broken by the rifle butts of an enemy who might make a landing. Now war is only a rumour, a possibility and a threat, and other incentives will have to be arranged. I am not quite sure what they will be.
Uniform, when it can be provided, is not much of an incentive to a great many men; and many of the old attractions of the Army, such as competition between platoons and companies and "get togethers," will be very difficult to organise in widely dispersed battalion areas. Therefore, leadership is vitally important on this occasion. If we can


get absolutely first-class battalion commanders they will collect first-class officers round them, and they will be able to attract men and keep them enthusiastic. I hope my right hon. Friend will take a long time and a great deal of care about selecting these leaders.
I was rather disappointed to hear him say that certain battalion commanders have been earmarked, because I should have liked a great deal more thought to have been given to the subject. I should have liked the War Office to have collected together ex-military secretaries and have an advisory committee to decide how the best local commanders in the areas could be selected. They are not necessarily the chaps with the most medals, or battalion or brigade commanders in the last war. It is local men with a great local standing and popularity who will bring the men in and keep them enthusiastic. I hope, therefore, that great attention will be paid to this question of leadership. If it is not, I am perfectly certain that the scheme envisaged by the Bill will be a flop.
On the question of mobility, I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that on this occasion we cannot expect to have that period of twilight, of moving from peace to war, we enjoyed in the past. We shall have to expect a sudden impact of the war next time, and maybe widespread parachute landings. Therefore, we have to regard this Force from the beginning as a mobile force. I suggest that together with the constitution of the Home Guard there should go forward the registration of owners of lorries and motor cars who, only if an emergency arose and not in the case of training, would be prepared to roll up battalion by battalion and section by section and make the Home Guard immediately mobile.
It is rather sad that at the end of 10 years of trying to make the people of this country socially secure from the cradle to the grave we find our society less secure than it has ever been in history—and that is the reason why we have to discuss this Bill this evening.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I rise to say a few words as one who played a very small part in the last Home Guard from the time it started

until it finished. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) that it will not be an easy proposition now to recruit the Home Guard again. Last time the present Foreign Secretary was able to rouse the patriotism that rests in almost all of our people, and they responded magnificently at once to the call for a force which would deal with any invasion.
But it seems to me the Government have introduced this Bill without any clear thought of what they mean or what the results are likely to be. I have spent some time looking through the records in HANSARD of references to the Home Guard by Members of the Opposition during the last Parliament and the replies given by Members of the Government. I found that, in particular, the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) figured largely in these Questions and debates.
It seems to me that now they might be usefully employed in a film prepared by the War Office for recruiting, with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely as a kind of Don Quixote with a bag of pennies which he could throw at his imaginary foes and the hon. Member for Maidstone with surplus apples from Kent.
But, to be serious, I pass to what the Minister said in his opening speech—that he conceived this organisation as one to deal with sabotage at the outbreak of war. I think that is something most unlikely to occur to any extent at all. It did not occur last time. It did not occur in the First World War. I well recall a lecture which I attended during the last war as a member of the Home Guard when someone from the War Office came down to tell us that in the event of invasion there was a potential army of saboteurs numbering 500,000 because, he said, there was that number of men unemployed. I resented that statement then; I resent the implication still, and I resented what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister said in his opening speech today.
There is no need to provide a Home Guard for such a contingency. I am not opposed—and I think my hon. Friends are not opposed—in principle to a Home Guard when a Home Guard is necessary;


but we object to such a Bill being introduced at this time when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has explained, there are very adequate Forces available for the defence of our country if an attack comes.
I am still not satisfied with what the Minister said when he spoke of an attack, because he did not say specifically that that would be an attack by a foreign Power. I hope that that is what is intended in the Bill and that that will apply. I have seen words in Bills and Acts twisted to mean all kinds of things and I am alarmed, too, that this simple Measure, as it is called, is to give powers of delegated legislation for almost the whole of the things which the Bill covers. I feel that instead of our having a Home Guard which has the unanimous support of the whole of the people in the country, the Government want to bring in a Measure which will divide the country almost irrevocably.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I could say a lot of very controversial things, particularly after having heard the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell); but a lot of hon. Members want to speak and I shall not do that. I would say, however, that I think hon. Members opposite should be a little cautious in what they say about the use of the Home Guard or the Armed Forces in connection with industrial disputes in time of peace, because the two Socialist Governments since 1945 made greater use in peace-time of the Armed Forces against strikers than any other Government in this country have ever done.
I welcome the Bill, but I think it is very important to have, at the outset, quite clearly in our minds what the rôle of the Home Guard is to be. It is to be substantially different from what it was in the last war, and it is to have different functions in town and country. I have not got the "Collier's Weekly" mentality. I see the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has a copy of that particular offending issue. I do not regard war as inevitable, but I do realise that if ever war comes in our life-time it will be with Russia and her Communist satellites. I believe the Home Guard can be one of the de-

terrents to war. I believe that the call for volunteers to defend their own homes will still strike the same response as it did before.
I am bound to say that my conception of the rôle of the Home Guard in the countryside is not quite the same as that of my right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill. He referred to the mustering of the Home Guard for the purpose of repelling a sea-borne invasion. I think its major rôle in the countryside is much more likely to be the repelling of an airborne invasion. I think it will have to deal with landings by enemy airborne forces if a war ever takes place. After all, the last war showed us—and I have some bitter experience of it myself—that if an airborne landing is not contained in its initial stages and if the invaders succeed in establishing dropping areas and landing strips, the situation becomes more and more dangerous every hour. I think the rôle of the Home Guard would be vital in repelling an airborne attack in the first hours.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the rôle in the towns would be very different. The Home Guard would assume responsibility for the protection and guarding of power stations, docks, railways and plant on urgent war production. In the event of attack it would have to hold strong points and block roads. I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) to this extent, that the Nazi fifth column was never any real menace in the last war, but I do believe that in any armed conflict with the forces of Communism the Red fifth column might be a much more formidable proposition.
After all, we have to consider—I am not going into any details—what would be the rôle of the Home Guard in the event of the occupation of any part of this country by enemy forces. The Home Guard is, of course, a volunteer organisation, and I think it is most important that it should have the strongest possible local associations in hamlet, village, factory, docks, railway depôts, and so on. That was largely responsible for its success in the last war.
I remember going down to Essex to umpire a Home Guard exercise which had involved the retirement of the Home Guard of Coggeshall upon the adjacent


village of Earls Colne. We assembled afterwards in a place of refreshment and I asked the Home Guard what they thought about the exercise. They said they thought it had been very interesting and useful. Then one of the sergeants said, "You know, Sir, there's one thing we don't hold with, and that is fighting for Earls Colne. We joined the Home Guard to fight for Coggeshall. We're Coggeshall chaps."
That is the spirit which inspired the Home Guard, although it might not have been very convenient from the umpire's point of view. I make that point because I am rather perturbed about a statement I read, said to have been made by a high ranking officer, to the effect that the Home Guard must be a highly mobile Force. Mobile it must be, for the reasons I have explained, but mobile in the area it knows well and in which it is interested.
There is this question of mobility—the question of moving the Home Guard quickly within their own area. Luckily, a vehicle has been developed out of the Jeep which is used very largely in the countryside for civilian purposes, but which is eminently suitable for cross-country work. There are also in the countryside a considerable number of former Army vehicles which have been converted to agricultural use. I support the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner), that we should now take a census of that type of vehicle. It should also be borne in mind that the Home Guard have a possible use in giving necessary training, as volunteers, to persons in reserved occupations. I am not suggesting there should be any compulsion at all, but the Home Guard can obviously have such a use.
I suggest that in forming the new Home Guard we pay very careful attention to what has been done in Switzerland, because that proud and brave little nation has achieved a remarkable feat. In Switzerland every man between the ages of 20 and 60 who is fit and well is today a trained soldier. They keep their rifles and equipment in their homes. I am not going to argue whether that is the right thing or not, but that is what they do. As a result of that system of training, Switzerland could mobilise half a million men in three days and still have reserves

of about 350,000. I believe that we can learn something from the Swiss.
I want to make a suggestion to my right hon. and gallant Friend on the question of uniform. Could we not issue each member of the Home Guard with a suit of denim overalls? After all, we shall not want a tremendous number of them, and I cannot help feeling that the men would sooner train in some sort of uniform and, incidentally, something which they could wash quite easily at home after days in the field.
My final remarks are these. In the last war the Home Guard had a wonderful esprit de corps and morale. I should like to tell the House one more story which was told of my county—I expect it was told of every county in the country—about a young soldier home on leave at the time when we were retiring fast towards Alamein. A little pot-valiant, he said to some members of the Home Guard, "I cannot think why you old boys want to spend all your time strolling about in uniform and playing at soldiers." A sergeant with a Mons medal said, "I will tell you why, young man. These Nazis have made a job of chasing you out of Norway. They chased you Regular chaps out of France and Belgium. They are now making a good job of chasing you out of North Africa, and we are here to make certain they don't chase us out of here."

5.25 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I have no doubt that many old soldiers and Home Guards could reminisce in the way that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) has, and entertain the House with some acceptable and some unacceptable stories of their experiences.
But we are discussing this Bill, and at the outset I would disagree with the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner), who suggested to the Secretary of State that some former military secretary should be appointed to go through the list of potential battalion commanders to see that we get the best possible leaders. The Secretary of State said today that the War Office are not going to centralise this organisation, and I think they are wise, considering that it is to be organised on a territorial basis and, I presume, will come largely under the administration of the Territorial Army.
I think that on reflection the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that the best people to select the battalion commanders will be people who know about the possibilities of these men locally, and not a former military secretary who has been located at the War Office advising the Secretary of State on Regular Army appointments.

Brigadier Rayner: I suggested that a collection of ex-military secretaries should advise how commanders should be selected locally. I wish to emphasise that local selection was the point I had in mind. My point was to see that the best men should be selected.

Mr. Bellenger: That seems to be making confusion worse confounded. If, instead of one ex-military secretary, we are to have a committee of them, they will get bogged down right at the start. I think we had better leave it in the way which prevails at present, at any rate in regard to some of the junior appointments in the Territorial Force.
The only argument that I could gather from the speech of the Secretary of State which seemed at all convincing was the one he used about releasing a large proportion of the Territorial Army to perform some of these routine duties so that their time could be devoted more to work of a military nature. That sounds, on the face of it, a very plausible reason for the introduction of this Bill, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, we on these benches would have no thought of preventing the Government from recruiting the Home Guard if the necessity were so urgent.
I cannot think from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks this afternoon that the situation is so urgent, or, if it is, that he is going to get the results for which he seems to be aiming. Take, for instance, the training obligation. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that it would only amount to a matter of one hour or so a week, but he will know only too well that the old Home Guard had much more rigorous training than that, and the Home Guard which it is proposed to set up, if it were mustered in wartime, would have to undertake many of the duties which the old Home Guard performed during the war.
After all, if we are to accept the right hon. Gentleman's words at their face value, or at their nominal value, we cannot have a Home Guard trained to cope with possible invasion by sea or air with the meagre training which I understood the Secretary of State to say was to be undertaken by the Home Guard.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Surely the situation is very different. In the last war they were training men who had no war experience at all or who had been out of the Armed Forces since the 1914 war. In this case we shall have men who fought in the recent war and who have war experience. Very little training will be needed to bring them up to the required standard.

Mr. Bellenger: I doubt the force of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intervention. The right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to say that Z Reserve men over 46 years of age are free to join, without any qualifications whatever, and no doubt they have considerable recent military experience.
Even so, I beg leave to doubt that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right when he says that many of the old Home Guard, in the last war, were men who had small military experience. It is true that their military service went back to the First World War, but they had what we hope many Home Guard will have—the soldierly virtues and experience which enabled them very quickly to assimilate such training as they had to do during the last war.
I have no reason to doubt the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions. Indeed, I have a "clean" mind on this matter. I think this Force would not be used to break strikes or anything like that, even if it were possible under the Bill to use it for such a purpose; because when we are recruiting men voluntarily, we do not get men in the Home Guard or elsewhere who would be willing to fight against their own comrades in a trade dispute.
We are long past the days when we could turn out the military in order to quell men who were demanding, often very vociferously and not by any pleasant methods, better wages or better working conditions. I would reject at once, therefore, any possibility that the Force could be used for such a purpose.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Every one who knows the history of this country knows what the Yeomanry did against the people in Manchester. My right hon. Friend should also know what was done in 1924 and 1925.

Mr. Bellenger: Of course, and for that very reason it would not be done—

Mr. Ellis Smith: The same people would do the same again.

Mr. Bellenger: Both my hon. Friend and myself have been in the Forces and we know the type of men, whether they be the young conscripts or those, like many of us, who fought in the First World War. Moreover, just because of the reasons which my hon. Friend has advanced, and from past experience, we know that it is impossible for any Government today to utilise any military or para-military force for a purpose like that.
I say this to my hon. Friend—and I hope he will agree, because he knows that I agree with him quite often on military matters: he has that patriotism which sent him into the First World War as a volunteer, as it sent many more of us, and he knows what is the basis of any voluntary military organization—patriotism, love of country and love of one's countrymen, too. I hope he will agree with me, therefore, that nowadays, at any rate, we have an Opposition which is sufficiently strong to prevent any Government from undertaking any action of the sort he suggested, even if they felt inclined to embark upon it.
Let us keep to the essentials of the Bill. What I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is this: if he wants these men only for guarding vulnerable points, I am not at all sure that he needs this type of organisation. Guarding vulnerable points is a special police job, on the lines that were followed in the First World War. If he wants only to guard vulnerable points—factories, and so on—he could probably recruit his men from the factory workers, who would look after their factories; and I do not think we need to have them in the Home Guard.
If, on the other hand, he wants them to guard airfields—and does the right hon. Gentleman mean that?—what is to become of the R.A.F. Regiment? Will that task not be undertaken by the R.A.F. themselves, defending their own airfields?

Such a task would be much more of a military affair than could be undertaken by a Home Guard which has been given very little training.
I do not know what rifle training a man can have in one hour a week, or how much Sten gun training, or how much other training which we know would be essential if he were to cope with a sudden incursion of airborne troops or with a sea landing. I do not want to spend too much time on the Second Reading of the Bill, because if this organisation is urgent and necessary, then I do not think we on this side of the House oppose the principle involved. What we are concerned with is whether this is the right time to introduce a Measure of this kind.
May I ask whoever is to reply for the Government what opportunities there will be for training facilities with the Regular Army? That is the only way the Home Guard got the necessary training in the last war—or through the special schools which were set up. That is the only way they will get the training this time if they are needed for the purpose suggested.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington that if we are to give any uniform allowance or allowance for wear and tear of civilian clothes, then £2 12s. a year, or a 1s. a week, is a paltry allowance. We might as well go the whole hog. If we are to ask them to turn up in their own clothes and to go through all sorts of strenuous exercises, then let us put them on the same level as the Territorial Army, who, I believe, have battle-dress issued, or certainly at least let them have denims, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Canterbury.
Consider what we have to pay for a civilian suit of clothes today. How far would one shilling a week go? It would be better either to pay nothing, as they are volunteers—and we should get quite a number of willing men to join—or to pay them the same sum as that paid to the Territorial Army.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman has compared this Bill with the 1907 Territorial Forces Act. As he knows, the 1907 Act is much more extensive than this Bill. Probably that was necessary at the time because on that Act was based the organisation of the Territorial Forces of this country, as an outcome of the investigations of Mr. Haldane, as he then was, and of those who assisted him.
There was one Clause in that Act which I regret is not in this Bill—Clause 6; and in it is enshrined a principle on which this House has insisted for many years. We have always limited the right of the Crown to recruit armed forces. We know that today the Crown is advised by Ministers, but that Clause contained this provision:
It shall be lawful for His Majesty to raise and maintain … number of men as may from time to time be provided by Parliament.
I think such a Clause should be included in the Bill. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington may have occasion to move an Amendment on those lines on the Committee stage. That Clause deals with the principle.
It is true that the Secretary of State has told us what is in the mind of the War Office and the numbers they propose to enrol; and I suppose those numbers will appear in his Estimates when he presents them early next year. But this House should insist that there should be some Parliamentary limit, other than that provided by the Estimates, in a Bill of this nature. There should be some Parliamentary provision controlling the right of the Crown to recruit armed or paramilitary Forces for whatever purposes they may be required, and in all seriousness I urge the House to consider this point, especially in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has compared his Bill with the 1907 Act.
Finally, I do not think there is much difference of opinion on the principle involved. At times we may perhaps be a little suspicious, but as long as we know that there are safeguards against any Government, and this Government in particular, using such a Force in the wrong way—and I am not suggesting that they would—and ensuring that they require the Force only for the purposes outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, then I do not think there could be any opposition today.
I am bound to say, however, that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington that it does not seem to us that this is the time to present a Bill of this nature to the House of Commons; and if it is the time for such a Bill, then this Bill is not the right one and is totally inadequate.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Alan McKibbin: We in Northern Ireland are most grateful that we have been fully incorporated in the Bill. During the last two wars we played our full part in the defence of freedom, both in the field and in many industrial spheres which are essential to the war machine. I am confident that the people of Ulster will volunteer in satisfactory numbers for the Home Guard.
There is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and that is how the Bill may affect recruiting for the Territorial Army and other voluntary services in Ulster. As the House knows, we have no conscription. All our auxiliary Forces are purely voluntary and we have no intake of National Service men completing their engagement on the Reserve. I have promised to speak for only two minutes, and in conclusion I assure my right hon. Friend that in all matters connected with defence he will have the full support of the Ulster people.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am not so sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) does not represent a part of the United Kingdom where there will be great difficulty as a result of this Bill, because I imagine that some of his constituents might be under the apprehension that people will be recruited under the Bill not for the purpose of fighting the Russians but for the purpose of attacking those on the other side of the Border.
He speaks of a country which has no conscription, and I cannot imagine that the people will rush enthusiastically to join the Home Guard. I think there will be so many remarkable anomalies in Northern Ireland that if I were a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament I should support the opposition to an indefinite continuation of this Bill.

Mr. McKibbin: The reason why Northern Ireland has no conscription is not their fault. The Ulster Parliament asked for conscription when the 1939 war broke out. The Members of the Ulster Party in the Imperial Parliament—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This point does not arise on the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: If Northern Ireland wants conscription it can have the conscription from Scotland.
There are good points about this Bill. One is that for the first time in six years I heard a speech from the previous Minister of Defence with which I largely agree. It is quite true that the previous Minister of Defence is not a pacifist, but he is coming on. He said something about militarism and about objecting to the Bill because it meant a greater degree of militarism in this country. I have been talking like that for six years. During the last six years I have thought that I have been throwing my pearls before unresponsive benches, yet here I have, half-converted the ex-Minister of Defence.
The Leader of the House told us in his speech on the Address that there were a lot of the skeletons hanging from the candelabra in Whitehall. There have been skeletons in the Ministry of Defence. The proper thing to do with the skeletons in this case is to throw them out—send them to the dust cart; but here the Secretary of State for War has taken over those skeletons from the previous Government, and dressed them up in military uniform—and this is his first contribution as a measure of defence.
I understand the point of view of the Secretary of State for War because he was so kind before the election as to send me an interesting pamphlet he had written called, "The Pattern of Peace." I read it very carefully, and I quoted from it extensively during the election. I appreciated his courtesy in sending me his pamphlet, so, as a reprisal, I sent him a pamphlet I had written called, "Arms and Mr. Bevan." All I hope is that, as a result of reading my pamphlet, the Sectary of State for War will at some stage in this Session introduce legislation based on the pamphlet I wrote.
I cannot find a similar degree of enthusiasm for this Bill in the Conservative Party. I believe that this Bill is largely the result of the personal enthusiasm of the brigadier infused into the forefront of politics. During the election I read the manifesto of the Conservative and Unionist Party, and although there was some reference to the Home Guard in the Secretary of State's pamphlet there was certainly none in that Manifesto of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I suggest that the reason was that during the election the Conservative Party were very anxious not to be thought a warmongering party; and so the Prime Minister, who wrote this Manifesto, for some reason or another omitted to mention the formation of the Home Guard in what crystallised as the election policy of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Commander J. F. W. Maitland: Read it again.

Mr. Hughes: I am not one who has called the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for War a warmonger. I have never done anything of the kind. All I have said about the Prime Minister in that respect is that no one has ever nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize, and I have never gone any further than that. I do suggest that really there is no mandate for this particular Bill, and that there is no hurry for it, and I certainly will support the Opposition and the former Minister of Defence in seeking to postpone it as long as they like.
I want to mention one or two good points about the Bill. So far as I can gather, it is not compulsory and, further, a man can resign from the Home Guard with the greatest facility. That is the only way this Bill can become operative and popular, and in which the War Office can get the millions of men it ultimately will require.
I shall move in Committee that National Service men shall have the opportunity to opt for the Home Guard that the National Service men shall have, as every British subject should, some degree of choice where they will serve. As far as I can see the National Service men of Scotland will be enthusiastic in opting for this Home Guard, which is not compulsory, and from which, presumably, one can resign after giving a reasonable 14 days' or so notice. It is only in that way that I foresee that this organisation will become the success that the Secretary of State anticipates.
Reference has been made to airborne attack upon this country; and, of course, there is the possibility. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) referred to the fact that I had in my possession an American magazine which gives us what is called a preview of the next war. There, with great


pictorial detail, we have a story of how airborne troops are to be used in the next war, and there is a picture across two pages of how troops will be parachuted into the Ural Mountains. These are not Russian troops but American troops.
This use of parachute troops is one of the fundamental ideas of the next war. Of course it has local possibilities as far as this country is concerned. We know that in the last war there was an airborne attack upon the Italian centre which had Mussolini as a prisoner. I believe that it was organised and directed by Hitler, and Hitler was very anxious that airborne troops should recapture Mussolini.
It is quite possible that the Soviets may have the same idea of capturing the Prime Minister of this country. They may say to themselves that the Prime Minister is the brains of this military system in Britain and that they will send over a small parachute detachment to capture him in Downing Street and take him over to Russia. I should bear that with my customary fortitude, because presumably he would, on reaching Moscow, direct the next war from Moscow, and that would be about the best kind of strategy for losing the war so far as Moscow is concerned.
As to the danger from the air, there is one point we should consider, and it is this. It is quite likely that the Russians have been thinking along these lines. What has commended this argument to me is that in his book, "The Defence of the West," Captain Liddell Hart, whom I have previously quoted in the House, argues that if we were to have a Home Guard, and the Russians knew that it was formidable, with large numbers and able to destroy any parachute force, they would be deterred if they were to contemplate airborne attack on this country.
However, that does not finish all the argument. We have to consider this argument a little further. If we have such a strong Home Guard that the Russians decide not to come by air it is likely to stimulate other ideas amongst the Russians, and then they are more likely to try to destroy key points in this country by atom bombs or rockets or something of that kind. I suggest that against the broad background of the possibility of a great war— and possibilities that the Prime Minister has on two occasions suggested in this House,

and recently at the City Guildhall—we may be at a great disadvantage in this country as the result of our having become a base of American activity and of the American atom bomb squadron.
We may, as a result of this very dangerous policy, be in what the Prime Minister has called the forefront of Soviet antagonism. Instead of thinking that there will be a war in which we can build up the Home Guard, we should think that we may have a sudden atom bomb attack—very suddenly, as the Secretary of State for War pointed out—so that, in two or three days, all this paraphernalia of the Home Guard would be almost irrelevant.
So I say that we are not facing the realities of 1952 or 1954 in building up the machinery of the last war, and that, against that broad background of possibilities, the creation of a Home Guard is trifling and irrelevant. It is building up false hopes. It is not giving greater security to the people of this country, and I shall have much pleasure in supporting the Opposition Front Bench if it is decided to try to postpone the Bill indefinitely.

5.56 p.m.

Sir Austin Hudson: I wish I could agree with hon. Members who have spoken from the other side that this is not a time in which we need create a Home Guard, but, unfortunately, neither I nor they have any means of knowing. We all agreed in the last Parliament that we should build up our defence Forces as well as we could and as quickly as we could, and I cannot help thinking that the immediate creation of a Home Guard will be an important part of what we then decided.
I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who said that it would frighten people on the Continent into thinking that we intended to withdraw within our coasts and not go to their assistance should, unfortunately, war sweep across the Continent; but I should have thought that it would have given them just the other impression. I do not know what the military plans of this country are, but I have always understood that should war unfortunately come the whole idea of the strategy of the Atlantic Treaty Powers would be to build a military wall across the Continent. In that case, no doubt, our best troops would be employed on


the Continent and would not be in this country to do the sort of job which my right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech.
If every hon. Member who served in the Home Guard and who is now of a certain age were to endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, we should have a very long debate, because in the war so many of us served in the Home Guard, but I should like, in the few minutes I shall address the House, to say a word or two from the point of view of one who had a certain amount to do with the administration of the Home Guard during the war. I had experience both as a company commander in a Civil Service formation in London, and later, for two years, as the commander of the 1st County of London (Westminster) Battalion, which was the general service battalion for this part of London.
It seems to me, on reading this Bill and considering what my right hon. Friend said, that there are certain problems with which he is faced now with which we were not faced at that time. The Home Guard, as he said, was formed in 1940, first of all as the Local Defence Volunteers, and there was no great difficulty then in deciding who could join the Home Guard, because those who were going to volunteer for the Regular Army and those who, within their age groups, had been conscribed into the Regular Army, had already gone into it. Civil Defence had also to a great extent been built up, and, therefore, the nucleus of the people who could join the Home Guard was obvious, and the volunteers flowed in. In making this point, I suggest that those people who are accepted as volunteers now—and I understand that the age group is from 18 to 65—should not be people who would almost immediately be wanted to leave the Home Guard and join some other formation.
I shall be interested to know later on what is the position in London. Naturally one is interested in the place where one has served oneself. London appears to have been left out of the vulnerable area in which it is proposed to recruit the hundred thousand. We should like to know whether there is any prospect of recruiting cadre formations in London, and whether some of the Civil Service battalions, which got themselves into a

fairly good state of efficiency during the war, are to be raised again.
One or two hon. Members have mentioned as essential the character of the commanding officers of the future Home Guard. I would point out that, in my view, it is not perhaps the good battalion commander so much as the good company commander who is essential. In London, my Westminster battalion did exercises quite often as a battalion, but I think that this was very exceptional in the country, because of the distance that the men had to travel. I therefore make the point that the character of the company commander is of the greatest importance if we are to have a successful Home Guard.
Further, I think that the officers, both battalion and company—I would not go beyond that at this stage—should be people who served in the last war. I was then comparatively young as a battalion commander, and the difficulty was that those who were available to do this job had no experience of modern weapons and had to learn about them from the Regular Army. I have heard—but I think that this is only a rumour—that some of the battalion commanders who have already been earmarked—and I do not know a single name—are people who have not had experience in the last war, but who were successful battalion commanders in the late Home Guard. I hope that point will be looked at, because I am sure that it is essential to get the right people.
We all get a little older, and there must be people who were most successful in the last war as battalion or company commanders who are now beyond the age limit at which they will be required to serve again. Another important thing—and I think that my right hon. Friend mentioned it—is to have a good quartermaster, adjutant and sergeant instructor, who were the backbone of many of these companies and battalions in the last war.
I want to make only one further observation, as there are many hon. Members who wish to speak, and that is on the controversy of whether the formation of a Home Guard will interfere, or otherwise, with the Civil Defence organisation, and whether there will be competition between the two. My experience was that we worked with the


greatest friendliness with the Westminster Civil Defence at a time when London was under pretty severe bombardment and in pretty severe straits. There was no competition between the two. I do not think that the Home Guard and the Civil Defence were striving for manpower against each other.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That was in war-time.

Sir A. Hudson: Certainly. When we were formed we found that we could work together in the greatest friendliness. As a Home Guard, we in London, on account of the flying bombs and V2s, were out pretty nearly every night, and there was no overlapping with the Civil Defence. We occasionally had to do rescue work, help the police in the prevention of looting and cordon off streets where shop windows had been broken during the night. We found that in our work with the police and the Civil Defence there was no friction whatsoever.
Then, in general with the Home Guard throughout the country, we had to guard vulnerable points. We had no difficulty in getting our rotas and the people to take over the vulnerable points and do a very difficult job. It never occurred to the Home Guard at that time that they would be employed for strike-breaking, but I think that this matter has been fairly adequately dealt with in the debate.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There were no strikes during the war.

Sir A. Hudson: If strikes should occur Regular Forces may have to be used for essential services, but it did not occur then, and I do not think that it will occur now. I think, however, that there will be difficulty in peace-time with regard to premises. During the last war, we in London had the advantage of the Territorial drill halls which were then not in use by the Territorials. I think that is a matter which will have to be carefully looked into, because I am not sure that the sharing of premises by the existing Territorial formations and the Home Guard will be a good thing. They may have different ideas on how things should be run, and this might create a certain amount of friction, which is best avoided.
I welcome the formation of the Home Guard. I am glad that no effort is being

made to raise enormous numbers of men at the present time. I feel that they will have a job to do almost immediately should war unfortunately come, in guarding vulnerable points at a time when the Territorial Army and Regular Forces will be required elsewhere. We have made a modest beginning, but I think that the formation of the Home Guard is a valuable part of our defence service.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: I want to say a brief word on some of the tactical conceptions which seem to underlie the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for the mustering and employment of the Home Guard in case of emergency. I do not think there is any doubt about the broad strategical position. With the new type of warfare, we in this country can no longer look to fighting a war on other people's battlegrounds. Therefore, ground forces have to be organised in three echelons. There has first to be a standing force to be used quickly at home or overseas, secondly, a large mobile and trained reserve to expand that force, and thirdly a potential local reserve for local employment.
We have at the moment our standing divisions and standing forces and our National Service men already mobilized and available if a sudden emergency has to be faced. They could quickly be brought into readiness and be available in this country for use. We have the Territorial Army with its National Service component available to expand the Regular Forces. In addition, we have vast reserves both of the Z men who will no longer be called up because they are working in reserved occupations and also members of the Home Guard of the last war.
We have thus the three composites of military ground forces if they are required—the immediate standing Army, the immediate Reserves for expansion of that standing Army and local Reserves for local use and local deployment. What is more, we have them now, and we shall continue to have them under the conscription scheme. As soldiers pass out of National Service and the Territorial Army period of engagement, they will then be available as trained soldiers for ultimate use in any invasion of this country.
Tactically the argument put forward from the other side is that we must have available at button-pressing notice large numbers of Reserve troops who could be employed on guarding vulnerable points and in readiness to repel a sea-borne or air-borne invasion. There are two different points of view about that. I think that it is a mistake to assume that we can use this kind of Force for anti-sabotage duties, as mentioned by the Secretary of State for War. Anti-sabotage duty is not just a question of standing guard with rifles and Sten guns. Sabotage does not mean people suddenly popping up from the hedgerows and making assaults on factories and power stations. It is done more subtly than that, and the mere presence of soldiers with Sten guns and rifles is not going to prevent sabotage.
What we need is some kind of special security police who have the power—and incidentally the Home Guard would not have the power—of search and inspection, and who have knowledge of the people who are normally in the vicinity of a particular area, so that they can spy strangers. The Home Guard, therefore, would be of very limited value in that kind of anti-sabotage operation. Where, of course, it would be extremely valuable is in repelling some kind of airborne or seaborne invasion.
Here again, I suggest there would be time to mobilise and create an efficient Home Guard. It is a mistake to assume that a seaborne or airborne invasion could be launched quickly. It is a mistake to assume that we can suddenly be confronted with aircraft overhead and paratroops dropping from them. Such an invasion would require the establishment of forward air bases and supply dumps, and with seaborne forces available to relieve the airborne forces once they have been dropped. This kind of operation takes a considerable time to build up.
Therefore, it is most unlikely that, for the purpose of an airborne or seaborne invasion, we should require in this country at press-button readiness large forces immediately available when an emergency is declared. For those two reasons, I do not think that the immediate tactical note envisaged for the new Home Guard as put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is very realistic. They will not be much use for anti-sabotage work, and there will

be time to prepare and mobilise an efficient and cohesive Force for anti-invasion work, whether the invasion is airborne or seaborne.
There is one other great difficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman had told us that there was an immediate danger now, then, of course, we would have been prepared to accept the immediate mobilisation of possibly a very large Home Guard, but, as it is, we are only being faced with the creation of a phantom army, equipped with arm bands, with rifles and sten guns in store around the corner. Whatever happens, there is going to be quite a lapse of time before this phantom army can become an efficient Force for use in any of the contingencies that I have outlined. Possibly, there will have to be an expansion of this Force in very rapid, double quick time from some 200,000 or 125,000 to 900,000 or possibly one million.
Therefore, if the tactical conception is of a very large Home Guard Force to be mobilised quickly on the outbreak of war, we are going to suffer from A and Q indigestion in the Armed Forces of this country, because at the same time while the Government are trying to carry out their proposal of expanding a 125,000 force into a force of millions, there will be the Z Reservists and the Territorial Army to be mobilised and there will be countless other mobilisation functions to be carried out within the Armed Forces.

Commander Maitland: Surely the hon. Gentleman has answered himself to some extent by indicating the great difficulty of mobilisation. The point of the Home Guard is that it can be easily mobilised while these other very difficult projects are being carried out?

Mr. Fienburgh: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised that point, because the rest of my argument deals with it. On the Government proposals, we have to face this enormous mobilisation in order to fulfil their tactical conception of using the Home Guard immediately war breaks out.
My argument, on the other hand, is that the immediate mobilisation of the Home Guard should not be envisaged on the outbreak of war, but that the Government should first be concerned with expediting the mobilisation and the equipment of those already in the Armed Forces for home or


overseas service. Then they should tackle the enormous task of mobilising the Z Reservists. When this has been achieved in an orderly manner—and phased in with it—to use a well-known military term—gradually we can begin to build up the Home Guard at a time when it will really be needed, because (a) there has been time for the enemy to prepare his military operations against this country; and (b) the Regular Forces will increasingly have had to leave their normal locations in order to move overseas.
In this way we would apply an integrated programme for the balanced expansion of the Armed Forces following upon the declaration of an emergency. First, the Z Reservists and the Territorial Army would be called, and when the military machine had digested this operation, we could then proceed to call up, around the skeleton organisation which all Members are agreed should be evolved, an organised Home Guard for use at a time when it is likely to be called upon to perform an anti-invasion role.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: And what would the enemy be doing all this time?

Mr. Fienburgh: One point to remember is that this force cannot be used for anti-sabotage duties in this country; and, secondly, it takes some considerable time for any possible enemy to prepare, mobilise and launch an airborne invasion of this country. During that time we would be able to mobilise the Home Guard with all the appeal of spontaneous enthusiasm instead of trying to whip it up in an atmosphere of panic and scare, which is the only basis for the creation of a Home Guard at this moment.
To serving officers in the Territorial Army like myself there are grave defects in the present structure of Territorial Forces, which I hope will not be repeated in the Home Guard should this proposal be pushed through and the battalions enroled. It is important to remove the suspicion on this side of the House that the Home Guard now proposed will not be a truly democratic type of organisation. It is important that the officers of this Home Guard shall be drawn from all ranks and sections of society. We do not want to see the creation of a Praetorian Guard of elderly Tory buffers. Although the procedure, machinery, techniques and schedules are all available for

the promotion of people from the ranks and the giving of commissions to people from all walks of life, very largely, both in the Territorial Army and elsewhere, they are entirely abortive at the moment, for the simple reason that some hon. Gentleman like the Prime Minister, like to wear uniforms, medals and organise occasions for the display of this kind of military finery.
I happen to belong to a Territorial formation which does not go in for this sort of thing very much. Many Territorials formations do. They ask their officers to buy patrols and service dress which together can cost £120 guineas if one is not very careful. They go in for expensive dining in nights and so forth. I ask that this kind of flummery should be cut out of any Home Guard which might be created at this moment, because that kind of thing is an effective barrier to a large number of otherwise very efficient officers who find themselves quite unable to bear the expense of these unnecessary fripperies of military service.

6.23 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I think we are all agreed that the officers for the Home Guard should come from all classes of society, and we well remember how admirably all contributed towards the success of the old Home Guard.
Many excuses have been given by hon. Members opposite as to why they are only going to give half-hearted support to this Measure. Some of the speeches made strike me as being a genuine contribution towards our thoughts on this question, as, for example, the speech of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). Others, however, seem to me to have settled down to say, "We ought to find some reason for opposing this scheme, but perhaps we had better not for that will be a bit unpopular. So let us see if we can find all kinds of cock and bull arguments"
I thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was deplorable, but at the same time characteristic. He said that this was the wrong time for this Bill, because there was a new feeling in the air of Europe, America or here. But why is there a new feeling? I know that I would not be able to take this argument


very far, but I suggest that the reason for the new feeling is because the Western democracies are showing that they are prepared to arm themselves.
This modest Measure is a demonstration by His Majesty's Government that they are continuing the process begun by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, and are carrying it a stage further. It seems to me that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was the speech of a man who felt that he dare not oppose this Bill, but wanted, if possible, to smear it at its beginning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That is what I thought and felt. In almost every sentence there was that bitter manner of his. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), put the point of view that the right hon. Member for Easington was moving as gently as he could towards a pacifist attitude towards re-armament That was a shrewd point.
This modest and sensible Bill will enable a number of people to get accustomed to the organisation which must be developed very quickly should the need arise. It will give the War Office the opportunity of feeling their way with public opinion, with the appointment of officers soon. It will enable them to collect a number of junior commanders of all ranks and pass them all out as commissioned officers. It will enable widespread study to be given to the many problems which a new Home Guard will have to meet in the new circumstances. All this surely is a wise thing to start.
It will begin to get equipment into the hands of a few people here and there, who will be able to study it, think about it and learn or re-learn how to use it. It will get the equipment distributed and in various ways it will make provisions which will be sensible provisions to make early. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this modest Measure, and my right hon. Friend for the effective way in which today he made his first major speech as a Minister of the Crown from the Despatch Box.
The Bill, I think, speaks about one of the duties of the Home Guard as being able to deal with the effects of attack. I do not know what that means, but I assume it means a kind of disturbance which is caused by bombing—one of my hon. Friends spoke about cordoning off

streets. But that is going into the realm of Civil Defence. I want to reinforce a point which I made in a Question I put to the Prime Minister, and I hope for a more satisfactory explanation now of the Government's attitude in this matter.
I cannot but feel that it was an accident that Civil Defence and the Home Guard were two forces and not one. It was an accident in time and in history, and if we ever have the time to think again I hope thought will be given to the question whether these two forces are not really one. I am not competent to say very much about the big towns, but
have heard many people in them, particularly those who have had experience on the Territorial Associations, say that Civil Defence and the Home Guard were one service. However, I have not the personal experience to guide me in forming that opinion.
When it comes to the country districts I am sure that I am right in what I am about to say. In the small villages and in the hamlets there are only a limited number of men fit to do this work at all. They are so few, in fact, that the same men must be used to resist parachutists and to put out fires which may be caused by bombing. It is no use saying that such men must be mobile and ready to go somewhere else. The real value of the Home Guard is that its members defend their own homes. That is what its name implies. The members will want to defend their homes from fire as well as from enemies.
It may be said that they will co-operate with Civil Defence as they did the last time. Surely they would co-operate better if they were integrated in the same service. My right hon. Friend said that the Government had thought about this very deeply —they did not have much time to do that —but they did not think it was a good thing. He did not give us any reasons why not, and I should like an assurance that nothing in the Measure will prevent a close association or integration of Civil Defence and the Home Guard if that is found to be a good thing. I hope as time goes on and there is opportunity that that question will be considered.
I have one last question. I do not understand why the line should be drawn from Flamborough Head to Start Point or Selsey Bill. Wherever you draw a line there is always trouble. Why is this country more vulnerable east of such a


line than it is west of such a line? I should have thought, in these days of swiftly moving aircraft, that the airman himself would not know whether he was over Flamborough Head or 50 miles further west.
There is a possible answer, which is that it is better to take this thing in bits, and that if we are to start anywhere we may as well start with the east because it is nearer the enemy. I can see that psychological point. There is some sense, too, in starting in a part of the country so that we can get to know our job before we start on the whole of the country. I cannot see any military reason for it unless all the targets are in the east and not in the west; but that I cannot believe either.
I welcome this re-creation of the Home Guard. I wish the War Office good luck in their working of it, and the officers and men who will join it success in their undertaking I add a prayer that all their good intentions and all their good work may never be needed.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: I should like to begin by complimenting The Secretary of State on the very lucid and charming manner in which he presented this Bill, and indeed on the charming manner in which he has answered all his questions up to date. My only criticism is that he suffers from a number of preconceived notions. I hope that he will soon get rid of the remainder of those preconceived notions which he had before he went into the War Office. We are really having an awful lot of them at the moment.
First we had his preconceived notions about overseas allowances for Korea which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman has now discovered it would be an entire breach of the Regulations to grant. He and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had preconceived notions about a Secret Session on defence, which they have now fortunately dropped. Now we have their preconceived notions about the new 280 rifle, which they knew nothing about before they came into office but had decided to abandon before they came into power. I hope that they will soon find out the true facts about that matter.
The present Bill is another example of the right hon. Gentleman's preconceived notions. There is still another one which

I hope we will not hear any more about. He had preconceived notions about an increase in the number of divisions which could be obtained from the present number of men in the Army. I hope he will soon come down to the House and apologise for his mistake.
We can see how hastily this Bill has been thought out and how ill-conceived it is because it is based on the Regulations issued in 1940 for the Local Defence Volunteers. The Bill is practically word for word the same. Something which is merely copied from the. Regulations of 1940 can hardly be suitable for the present time.
There are a number of objections to mobilising the Home Guard at the moment. One of them, perhaps almost the principal one, is that it is unnecessarily alarmist. This is one of the things which hon. Friends of mine and I said, during the election, was the sort of thing the Tories would do if they got into office. We said that they would do things which unnecessarily created panic.
If we establish a Home Guard we are bound to create an atmosphere of extreme urgency and make people, feel that war is just around the corner. That is not a healthy atmosphere to try to sustain over a long period. We are bound to make people wonder; and people in Europe will wonder also how serious are our protestations that we are earnest about our contributions to European defence when they see that we are once more falling back upon the Home Guard.
It seems to me that the whole question whether this Bill is appropriate hinges on the timing. The right hon. Gentleman told us very carefully and distinctly that he did not think the danger of war was any more likely today than it was when the late Government were in office. I see that the right hon. Gentleman assents to that. During the course of his speech I questioned him on the amount of time he thought would be necessary to train the Home Guard before they were ready and able to do the tasks for which he wants them. He said he thought that they would be ready at once.

Mr. Head: Mr. Head indicated dissent—

Mr. Wyatt: Oh, yes. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to correct that statement I will give way.

Mr. Head: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I meant not the present Force but the proposed Force which will be created under the Bill.

Mr. Wyatt: This is a very important point and I want to get it clear. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that once these men are enrolled he would regard them as being able and ready to perform the tasks for which he wants them. If that is correct it does away entirely with the need to mobilise the Home Guard now. I shall try to explain why.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that we never know when a war might begin. There is some force behind that argument. It might happen suddenly, but it cannot happen as suddenly as all that. If there is to be an outbreak of war we are bound, through our Intelligence Service, to get some inkling of it beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is unthinkable that the Russians—these are the people we are worried about—would suddenly launch an attack upon us without bringing more forces up to their forward areas than they have there today.

Mr. Head: The American intelligence service gave absolutely no warning before Pearl Harbour. That is typical of modern war and is the kind of thing that we have to prepare for.

Mr. Wyatt: The right hon. Gentleman must display more confidence in his own Intelligence Service, for which he is now responsible. He will find that they will assure him, when he has an opportunity of a few conversations with them, that it is quite unthinkable that there could be a sudden attack without some preliminary warning that there had been a build-up of forces towards that end.
Suppose that build-up only took place over two months, and that would be a very rapid operation, a very quick time for a war to be launched from the beginning of a buildup, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree; that would be the moment to mobilise the Home Guard, when the emergency had become very real and apparent to the entire country when it had become clear to everybody that the danger of war was right upon us Then the right hon. Gentleman could come to this House, get the Bill, and, in a matter of hours, get it passed through.

He would get all the men he needed and, on his own showing, they would be ready in time to perform the tasks immediately which he wants them to perform.
Our case against the Bill is that this is not the right time to introduce it. What will happen? The right hon. Gentleman will get some volunteers into this Force. After about six months those volunteers, unpaid, unsung, will lose their enthusiasm. The right hon. Gentleman, by introducing this Bill prematurely and when there is no need for it, will destroy what will, in the event of war, be a very good and necessary safeguard for our defence. The Bill, far from being a help towards our defence, is undermining our defence by going off at half-cock before the right time. That is the great danger of the present Bill.
Now is the time for preparatory measures, which we have already taken, which the late Government took, of earmarking key officers and battalion commanders, and appointing staff officers for the Home Guard in each command. That was the correct thing to do, to have this machinery all in readiness. The right hon. Gentleman has come to his office with the preconceived notion that a Home Guard is necessary at this moment, when it is not. He has pushed it through as a mere imitation of the Regulations for the Local Defence Volunteers. It is ill-conceived and unplanned, and it will not produce the results which the right hon. Gentleman wants.
He has told us that the greater part of the strength will be east of a line which he depicted to us. I quite agree with that. Some of my hon. Friends have wondered why such a line was selected. It is perfectly sound. We obviously require to have the Home Guard thickest where the danger of air landings is greatest. There can be no real dispute about that. To the west of that line he wants them spread more thinly.
The trouble about starting a volunteer Force when there is no immediate danger of war and no apprehension that "any day now" Russia will start an attack upon us, is that we shall not get the volunteers in the way we want them. We shall not necessarily have them according to the pattern in which the right hon. Gentleman has asked for them.
If he had only waited until such time—which I hope will never come—as an


emergency was clearly seen in everybody's mind to be present, he would have got all the volunteers he wanted. He would then be able to pick and choose, to select and adapt them and put them into formations in exactly the way required. In time of war he might even add compulsion to the voluntary system. That is the main case against having a Home Guard now.
There are one or two other questions which need to be asked. The right hon. Gentleman is very keen, and quite rightly so, upon stimulating recruiting for the Territorial Army. He should be very careful that he does not divert into the Home Guard people who would otherwise be inclined to join the Territorial Army. I hope that he will think about that.
Another thing which I found rather surprising was his sweeping aside with great contempt the notion that there should be any payment for people who do Home Guard service. I remember the right hon. Gentleman being a fiery exponent of the money incentive for national service in the Army, the Territorial Army, and all the rest of it. That is one of his preconceived notions that he might have carried with him into office.
It will be very difficult to keep people enthusiastic over a long period. We all hope that it will be a very long period before the Home Guard are wanted, if ever. Having killed the idea of a nucleus of the Home Guard by bringing in this Bill prematurely, the right hon. Gentleman must now find some way of keeping up enthusiasm which would have been there spontaneously, but which will now die if not otherwise stimulated.
The right hon. Gentleman will have to find it now by giving some monetary incentive, otherwise this Home Guard will fade away in the night. What is to be his method of keeping people in the Home Guard? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that they can resign at will, and that there is to be no check, hold or tie. They will fade away unless the right hon. Gentleman gets some incentive to keep them in their places.
I feel, as my hon. Friends feel, that it is most unfortunate that the Bill has been introduced. All that was required was a Bill to earmark key personnel, commanding officers of Home Guard battalions and

a few others, and so having a framework in readiness to be built upon should an emergency arise. The right hon. Gentleman is by this Bill diverting effort from where it is needed. He will divert into this half-baked, half-cocked arrangement the enthusiasm for a Home Guard which will be altogether lacking should we need a Home Guard later on. It is not too late even now for the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the introduction and the implementation of the Bill. If he does not do so, he will not strengthen our defences but undermine them.

6.45 p.m.

Commander J. F. W. Maitland: The Opposition case is really based on the question of timing, and it is something about which I wish to speak for a few minutes because I believe the Opposition are arguing from the wrong premises. It has always seemed to me that in building up a re-armament programme one must have both short-term and long-term policies. Surely in the forefront of the short-term policy must be the vital necessity of maintaining this country as a great base, not only for ourselves but for all those in the Western organisation who are our partners in the attempt to re-arm or, if one likes, to create a balance of power.
If that is true, and the defence of our base is of the greatest importance during the first period, it is also true that during that period the base will be in the greatest danger, because as one builds up one's re-armament programme so it becomes more possible to keep the enemy at arm's length and more difficult for the enemy to make sudden attacks on the country. The Home Guard ought to be available right at the beginning of any war that may come, and I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend has introduced this Bill at this time.
I, too, am worried about the standard of training that these volunteers will be able to achieve, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if they will have to be available to man the high-angle guns. The subject was mentioned in another place during the last Parliament when the Home Guard was discussed. It is important that we should know if that is to be one of the functions of the volunteers. If it is, and in conjunction with their other duties, there is no doubt that it places a very serious test on their efficiency. We


have heard from the Opposition—quite rightly—that the volunteers will have to do jobs which need considerable skill. Anti-sabotage work has been mentioned. Just scampering around with a rifle will not do; one has to know more about it than that. It will also be quite useless and a sacrifice of life to throw half-trained men into an attempt to compete with a heavy airborne raid.
I want to make a suggestion which I believe might help. We ought to have a nucleus of trained men in the Home Guard. The late Government decided recently to extend the call-up process to the agricultural industry, and, as a result, a comparatively small number of men are being called up. That does not matter very much at the moment. If there was the disaster of a war tomorrow it is probable that those men could easily be spared, but as the years go on, if all those men in the agricultural industry were called up I believe that it would be impossible to release them because of the absolutely vital importance of food production.
I suggest that the Government face the problem and say in effect. "Let us take these men from the agricultural industry and give them specialised training as Home Guard men. Let them do the same time in the Reserve as the other National Service men, and let them form the nucleus of a trained Home Guard in the country districts" I believe that this would assist recruiting. I also believe that if these men were made instructors wherever possible it would assist the efficiency of the whole system. The Government should consider this very seriously. It might also be applied to other industries which would undoubtedly be reserved in war-time.
I never have thought that talking about war by serious people was in itself a wicked thing to do. War is a fact. All of us in the House have lived through two wars. It is no good pushing war on one side; if we face its realities we are more likely to realise its horrors and more likely to prevent it happening. I believe it would be wicked not to train our people to be able to defend themselves. There are people in this country who say that they will not fight, and we often hear the remark, "I am not going to fight next time," but, make no mistake

about it, people will fight next time. Just as the people of France, Belgium and Norway formed resistance movements and fought gallantly, so will our people, and they will probably fight better and more efficiently.
But if we do not give them a chance of being trained all their sacrifice may be in vain and they may be massacred. If we train them we give them a chance and they can form our trained nuclei in the countryside and teach others, so that if war comes they may not only live but also be successful.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: A remark which riled me more than anything else was made by an hon. and gallant brigadier on the other side of the House who, with a wave of his hand, referred to those who have no military experience except that which they acquired in the First World War. I should have thought that that would have been very good military experience.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I believe that the hon. Member is referring to me. I was not saying anything derogatory. All I was saying was that it was a very long time from the 1914 war to 1939, whereas now we are only six and a half or seven years away from the last war. All I meant to say was that the experience of those who were in the last war would now be so much fresher than that of those who had only taken part in the First World War.

Mr. Simmons: At any rate, it gives me a text on which to start as it enables me to say that I am in that position. I was never a brigadier or a major or even a captain I was never more than a private. The position in the House seems to be the reverse of the position in the Army. In the Army there are a great many more privates than officers, but in the House of Commons we seem to have a great many more officers than privates.
I want to raise one or two matters which have entered my thoughts as I listened to the debate. I was rather shocked when the right hon. Gentleman referred to a clothing allowance of £2 2s. 6d. a year.

Mr. Head: It is £2 12s. a year.

Mr. Simmons: I was shocked when I heard this figure because when I was in the Ministry of Pensions our lowest clothing allowance for a disabled man was £5 a year and it could rise to a maximum of £8. It occurred to me that the Government were treating prospective entrants into the Home Guard rather shabbily.
I was rather concerned to learn that the officers were to be selected or earmarked. It is very important that we should know who is to officer the new Home Guard. Why are these people to be selected, on what basis are they to be selected, and why have they been earmarked? Do their political opinions have to be vetted before they are appointed? Has their social standing to be taken into consideration? Must they be able to hold their own with the county people before they are appointed as officers in the Home Guard?

Mr. Head: I mentioned that in the case of a large number of commands the commanders had been earmarked. I ought to point out that they were earmarked under the auspices of and during the time of the late Government.

Mr. Simmons: That does not alter my point of view, because the same "brass hats" in the War Office are there whatever Government is in power. The "brass hats" are the people who have the influence, and it takes a very strong Minister to stand up against them, for they have been entrenched in the War Office for generations and are carrying on the traditions of generations. We ought to have some guarantee that this will be a very democratic Force.
During the First World War we had navvies' battalions, and such people as Colonel John Ward were able to rise to.the top from the very bottom of the workingclass ladder. I do not know whether any of them became generals—perhaps that was a bit too much to expect—but they certainly became colonels in The labour and navvies' battalions. We have had experience of what the officer class has meant in the past. Those of us who have served as privates know something about it, and I want to make certain that the new Home Guard will be a democratic organisation.
There has been a lot of pooh-poohing on the subject of the use of the Home

Guard in connection with industrial disputes. But some of us have a long experience of the workingclass movement and have been members of trade unions for a great number of years, and we have long memories, and we know that troops have been used in industrial disputes. Not merely have they been used to see that the essential services of the nation are carried on but they have been sent armed with ball cartridges to shoot down miners.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that within the last few days a quasi-judicial body for which the Home Office is largely responsible interfered in a trade dispute?

Mr. Simmons: I am concerned about the possibilities of the Home Guard. I have read the Bill, and I see that the Home Guard are to be members of the Armed Forces of the Crown and will be subject to military law. Clause 1 (4) safeguards the position of a Member of the House of Commons by saying that he
shall not … be rendered incapable of being elected, or of sitting and voting as, a Member of the House of Commons.
Why cannot we have a similar Clause protecting the trade unionist, saying that his membership of the Home Guard shall not do anything to prevent his carrying out his duties as an official or member of his appropriate trade union? If there is no fear of this force being used in industrial disputes, surely a provision of that kind should not be resisted by the Government.
I was rather sorry to hear the bitter tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I presume that he was speaking as a Tory Member of Parliament and not as the President of the British Legion. He referred to the half-hearted excuses of the support given by the Front Bench because, he said, the Opposition were afraid that if they supported the Bill they would be unpopular.
That was an unworthy jibe. It was suggesting, I think, that Members on this side are prepared to sink their principles because they fear the consequences. That is entirely untrue, because in the history of the British Labour movement there have been more men and women who have suffered victimisation for their


principles than amongst the Members on the other side of the House or in the party they represent. That was a very uncalled-for and unkind jibe on the part of the hon. Member.
He said that the arguments against the Bill were "cock and bull" arguments. Although one may support the general idea of the Home Guard, if a Home Guard is necessary, we wonder sometimes whether it is necessary, because from what I can gather—I am not an expert—the duties of the Home Guard and those of Civil Defence approximate very much to each other; and if we are to have an organisation to carry out those duties and we have a choice between a military and a non-military organisation, I would choose the non-military organisation. If Civil Defence can do the job, surely this Home Guard Bill is unnecessary.
In any case, I regard the Bill as untimely. I believe it is part of the Government's policy of scare and panic, of creating an "atmosphere" in the country. I know what the party opposite want—they want a Coalition. They know that they cannot carry on very long themselves. They are beginning to crack already and they want a Coalition, and the only possible hope in their minds of a Coalition—but we on this side know there is no hope—is to create a feeling of scare and panic.
No one wants war, but some people have a queer way of showing their preference for peace. I never called anybody a warmonger during the General Election, but I noticed after the Election that the Prime Minister soon grabbed the post of Minister of Defence. We have this unnecessary Bill, with a military flavour, at a moment when the United Nations organisation is discussing disarmament. It would be a very good gesture to the United Nations organisation, and would give very good help to those who are fighting for the principles of disarmament, if the Government would graciously withdraw the Bill.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: I am grateful for the opportunity of saying a word or two in support of the Bill, because I have been rather intrigued by some of the arguments which have been advanced against it. As I

understand it, the opposition which has been expressed to the Bill has been engendered by the feeling on the benches opposite that it is liable to create panic, alarm and disturbance in the country.
Apparently, it is quite all right to embark upon a programme of £4,700 million expenditure upon armaments without causing alarm and disturbance. It is quite all right in peace-time to conscript young men into the Armed Forces against their will—that does not cause alarm or disturbance. It is perfectly all right, according to hon. Members opposite, to create a Civil Defence Force, but if anyone dares to suggest calling up or recruiting a very limited number of Home Guard on a voluntary basis, with an expenditure which is reckoned at its maximum not to exceed £2½million, that is the end according to them.
I am not sure whether the word "poppycock" is a recognised Parliamentary expression, but if it were it might fairly be applied to some of the puerile arguments advanced so far in this connection. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that the objections of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Bill are without any foundation whatever.
I welcome the Bill, because I believe that it will be of considerable assistance to some of the Measures which have been passed by the previous Government. With the unanimous support of those who have opposed the Bill this afternoon, there was introduced, or an attempt was made to build up, a Civil Defence organisation. Nobody will pretend that Civil Defence recruiting has been as successful as one would have hoped. The reason for its lack of success has been due, in my submission, to the fact that there are a very large number of people who have previously seen service in the Home Guard and who are anxious to know whether they are likely to be able to be so employed in the future; and if they cannot be so employed in the future, their services will be available to Civil Defence.
This Measure, in so far as it clarifies the position of those who are able to be recruited into the Home Guard, will be of considerable benefit in stimulating recruiting for Civil Defence also. If that is considered to be a desirable objective on the part of those who introduced it in the first place. I hope they will continue to give it their support.
I am interested also in the arguments advanced by the former Minister of Defence, who does not seem to enjoy the whole-hearted confidence of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons). The hon. Member seems to think it is rather disreputable to hold the position of Minister of Defence, and criticises the present Prime Minister for taking that office, which, he seems to suggest, is something of a warlike character.
I have never regarded the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) as being a particularly warlike individual. I am, however, interested in his observations that the Bill is wrong because it does not provide for adequate payment for services given of a voluntary nature. Indeed, he was supported in that view by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). They both seemed to think that payment must come before anybody does anything to help his country. That reminds me of a play I once saw, the title of which, I believe, was "Mercenary Manny" or perhaps it was "Mercenary Mary" It drew attention to the fact that there are individuals in the country who seem to think that payment must be made for any service which is provided.
Those of us who have had some experience of the days of the old Home Guard will remember at any rate that the finest days of the Home Guard were when no subsistence allowances whatever were paid and it was upon a 100 per cent. voluntary basis. Then it was that we got the best possible service, with men willing to work all the hours in the day, willing to sacrifice a great deal of their leisure time in order to perform a service which they were pleased to render to their country. I am quite satisfied that there is still a sufficiently large number of people willing to render that service, and I hope that the question of payment will not be further dragged into our discussions.
All those who have had experience of the Home Guard will be interested in the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) in which he put forward a view which is, I think, generally accepted by those with experience of the Service. That is, that in the main it would be much better if we could have one service, some of whose members were detailed for Civil Defence duties while

others were allotted to other types of duties common to the Home Guard. I believe I am right in saying that one of the main objections to that—at least, so I was told on a previous occasion—is that if hostilities should break out and people were to become prisoners of the enemy, they would be subjected to rather different treatment as members of a military formation from the kind of treatment which they would be entitled to receive if they were members of a purely civilian organisation. I believe I am right in saying that that is the reason for the distinction between the two forms of service, the Civil Defence and the Home Guard.
Therefore, much as one might wish to find a unified service created, there is a good deal of common sense in the Measure which has been introduced. It seeks to build up, not a large and powerful military body to attack anybody; not a large and powerful military body which is likely to excite the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), lest it should commit an assault in some other part of the world, but an organisation of a defensive character, which will not come into being and certainly will not be mobilised—although the hon. Member for Aston seems to think otherwise—but will be recruited and will be provided with a limited period of training, during the course of which its members may be the better able to defend their country should it be attacked.
I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Brierley Hill in dealing with the question of how officers should be selected. In common with some of his colleagues, the hon. Member seems to have a rather poor view of those who occupy high office in the military forces of the country. Apparently, he does not consider them to be very capable of choosing the right type of officer and wants this to be done on a democratic basis. I do not know whether he is advocating soldiers' and sailors' councils—

Mr. Simmons: Why not?

Mr. McAdden: —as a good Soviet model for us to copy. In such councils, the soldiers and sailors would presumably meet on periodic occasions and elect those whom they wish to be the officers to preside over them. This idea, apparently, finds favour with the hon. Member, but I do not think it would find any favour with


those who have any experience of running an organisation of the character of the Home Guard.
I am fully Conscious that others wish to take part in the debate, and whilst there is much I should like to say, I confine myself to commending the Bill to the House. I believe that it represents a step that is necessary at this time, which will not create any alarm, panic or disturbance, but which will give to those who are anxious to be of service to their country the opportunity of rendering service in a way which they think is good and useful, and for which they are to be encouraged to volunteer. I hope we shall never find a shortage of people who are prepared to volunteer their services without pay or reward in order to be of service to their country and to defend its institutions of which they are proud and in which they believe.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) dismissed very vigorously the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) that the Home Guard organisation should be democratic. I should have thought, from our experience in the last war and from my hon. Friend's experience in 1914–18, that there was every reason for his plea. Even at this very moment, in one section of the Army social position counts very much for a commission. The Guards Regiments are an example. Certainly, we should pick the best men in any organisation, and the test should be whether they are good soldiers or good administrators.

Mr. McAdden: Who should pick them?

Mr. Peart: I hope that these social considerations, which have carried weight in the past, will not be countenanced in this organisation.

Mr. McAdden: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pearl: Therefore, it is right and proper that my hon. Friends on this side of the House should emphasise the importance of the democratic nature of this organisation.
Again, the hon. Member for Southend, East, dismissed very vigorously the view and the criticism which we have put forward that the Bill is some form of a

panic Measure. But it is something new in our peace-time history for the Crown to ask for a certain number of men serving in an auxiliary organisation to be subject to military law.

Mr. McAdden: Is it not even more new in our peace-time organisation to conscript people for compulsory service with the Armed Forces of the Crown?

Mr. Pearl: Certainly that was a new step forward when we introduced conscription, and it was right and proper that hon. Members on both sides of the House should offer searching criticism. I stress that this is something new. After all, we have a long tradition of constitutional liberty. We can go back to the Bill of Rights of 1689 and there it is stated,
The raising or keeping of a standing Army within the Kingdom in time of peace unless it be with the consent of Parliament is against the law
We all know that successive Army Acts have suspended that unrepealed provision of the Bill of Rights. The reason for that provision was not due to any objection on the part of the British people to military service, but that the Army might be dangerous to the liberty of the subject if it was in the hands of an unwise ruler. That is precisely the view we are putting forward to-day.
There are still dangers, particularly under a Tory Government, for in the last few days we have seen an increase in the power of the Executive and contempt for this House of Commons: key Ministers are in another place; and we are to, have a long Parliamentary Recess. It is because of these dangers that we put these questions as this new Force might be used in certain circumstances for other purposes.
It is all very well to give promises, but if we examine the Bill and the statements of Secretary of State for War we find that a person who is mustered, or a person who is in training is subject to military law. If such a person reported for training, he could be directed to do some task or job to which he strongly objected, but he would be subject to military law. Therefore, it is right and proper that in the interests of constitutional liberty we should probe the proposal made by the Secretary of State and insist that in no circumstances shall men be trained and used in industrial disputes.


I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War to reconsider making a final decision on the geographical division. This point of view has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If this volunteer organisation is to protect key centres in time of emergency it should apply to the whole country. One may give an example of the interests of Liverpool in the west; they are just as important as the interests of some of the East Coast towns, which will have a larger defence organisation.
I have a feeling that the people advising the Minister are still thinking in terms of old warfare and the strategy to deal with a land invasion coming from Europe.

Mr. Head: Mr. Head indicated dissent.

Mr. Peart: We should not be thinking purely in terms of past military strategy. I hope that the Colonel Blimp mentality which we still detect will evaporate when we discuss the matter in detail in Committee.
If it is necessary for the reasons mentioned by the Secretary of State for War to have this skeleton organisation prepared, it should apply to the whole of the country. Liverpool and other centres in the west have as much right to be considered as other areas in the east. There was also the point of view raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), on the question of London; as yet we have no details. I hope the Under-Secretary will give us more information in his reply.
I should like to know what real consultations there have been with the Territorial Association. The argument has been put forward by the Minister that the creation of this proposed organisation tactically and strategically will help in the use of Territorial Forces and other Forces. But is there not a danger that in peacetime, because of limited equipment and because of a limited number of trained instructors to give effective instruction of a military kind, we shall have two competing organisations? I hope there has been full consultation on training, and that it has been carefully discussed with organisations like the Territorial Association.
I should like to know what consultation there has been with trade unions and employers. After all, the Home Guard will ostensibly play a part in defending

factories, and I should like to know if this matter has been discussed. I recognise, as my right hon. Friend the ex-Minister of Defence said today, that we must have adequate defences. But we want reasons for a Measure which, to me, seems to be a panic Measure.
We want further information. It is not sufficient to present a Bill of this nature to the House of Commons when much of the information given by the Minister could have been included in some way or other in the Bill. I trust that we shall consider this Bill carefully in Committee. I am not a pacifist, as is my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I respect his point of view, but I believe in adequate defence, and if this organisation is to make its contribution, it has my wholehearted support, but for the moment I believe that this Bill is a panic Measure.
I support the Bill in principle, but I want more reasons for it, and I hope they will be forthcoming when we discuss the details. It is certainly important that we should have adequate defences, learn from the mistakes of the past and never again be caught napping. Above all, I hope that in the formation of an organisation like this, when we are departing from an important peace-time precedent, we shall bear in mind the importance of protection of constitutional liberty and the need to create a really democratic organisation.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Ashton: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has expressed anxiety, about snobbery in the Home Guard. I think that one of the very good things the Home Guard did was to bring town and country and every class of the community together. I am certain that in a very critical time in the history of our country it played an important part. I also believe I am right in saying that he and I had the honour of serving in the Royal Regiment of Artillery in different wars. He made some reference to guardsmen but I think he will agree that when we were in a tough place we were glad that the Guards were there—

Mr. Peart: I was not detracting from the high quality of the Guards Regiment, but I was quoting them as an example of the appointment of officers by social


considerations apart from military qualifications, which is the thing that matters. I hope that a practice of that kind will not be taken into consideration in the appointment of officers to the Home Guard.

Mr. Ashton: I am fully aware of the point made by the hon. Member and, while not necessarily accepting it, I wish to point out that the officers of the Guards have been very well chosen.
I wish to come to the speech of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). I listened to it with some regret. He and I are old enough to remember the start of two world wars. We are near the end of the debate and I do not want to go over the ground minutely, but I think he will agree that had better preparations been made in 1914 and 1939 many of those who laid down their lives might have been spared. He and many others in this House before the Second World War found themselves unable to support what preparations were made.
I have been in this House only a relatively short time, but I have seen the right hon. Gentleman at this Despatch Box putting forward a programme for rearmament, the necessity for which we all regret; first £100 million, then £3,600 million and then £4,700 million. In the face of some rather bitter opposition from behind him he stood up to criticism and did what he felt was his duty to this country at a difficult time.
He did not happen to be in the Chamber when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) made his speech. We often enjoy the interventions of the hon. Member. I know it has been said that he is, in fact, a pacifist. I admire a chap like that: it requires great moral courage to be a pacifist. But I think he also would agree with me that if we had all found ourselves in that frame of mind in two world wars then he and I would not be able to be standing here having what, I hope, is a friendly, objective discussion on this matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On the contrary; I do not think we should have had any wars at all.

Mr. Ashton: The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine.
The point was made perfectly legitimately that the right hon. Member for Easington seems to have changed his mind. When he was in office we gave him every support in these proposals. Now he has taunted us with this Measure, saying it has sinister designs, and that we were going to spend a lot more money. As regards the sinister motive I thought that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) seemed to put that in its proper perspective. The suggestion was made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Home Guard might be used for breaking strikes. The implication in his voice was that that was the intention—

Mr. Shinwell: I merely asked the question. It was quite a proper question to ask. I received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, but I wanted more than an assurance. I cannot recall having said that this Bill was inspired by sinister motives.

Mr. Ashton: My recollection of the words used was that the right hon. Gentleman said that despite the assurance, he must have it put in the Bill, because he did not trust the word of the Tories.

Mr. Shinwell: If I say that I do not trust the word of the Tories that is not imputing sinister motives. It is merely stating a fact.

Mr. Ashton: I was very glad that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw put the thing in its right perspective. He said there was obviously no intention whatever in this Bill to do that, and furthermore, that it was quite impracticable.
Sound arguments have been put forward that there might be some competition for personnel. In my own county of Essex, unfortunately, Civil Defence recruiting has not been very good, nor has it been all over the country. I think there has been only a 30 per cent. response. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) that there has been some hesitation as a result of the situation in which these people were left by the right hon. Gentleman saying—as I noticed he is raising his eyebrows I will quote what he did say, after making a statement on 15th November, 1950—in reply to a question:
Anyone who wishes may transfer from Civil Defence to the Home Guard, provided


that there is a place in the establishment. I imagine that no difficulty will arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1950: Vol. 480, c. 1716.]
It seems to some of us that if under those circumstances there was an emergency, and those in the Civil Defence were transferred to the Home Guard, there might be very considerable difficulties. That is a point which my right hon. Friend might look into. There will be competition for manpower, not only in regard to the Home Guard and Civil Defence, but in many other duties.
I was glad that my right hon. Friend in his admirable opening speech reiterated that this is an entirely voluntary effort. A voluntary effort is something which is encouraged by example. I am sorry that the age limit has prevented the right hon. Gentleman himself from coming forward again and serving in the House of Commons Home Guard as he did during the Second World War. But it is the case that ages are sometimes scaled down. People do come forward and put down their ages rather differently from what they really are.
There has been a lot of argument to the effect that this is the wrong time to prepare. But when are we to make any preparations for war? There are people in Civil Defence who have been there for 15 months and I think that some of them are just a little "browned off" These things are very difficult. Had it been suggested in 1939, even after the outbreak of war, that a Home Guard would be necessary, anyone making that suggestion would have been laughed to scorn. We have had two world wars. Surely if there is any doubt we ought to err on the side of making rather more preparations than less. There are difficult problems to be tackled in putting into operation the details of this Bill, but, having regard to our previous bitter experience, I believe that we are right in going ahead with this Measure.
Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that what has been done already in the world in the last 18 months has tended to prevent the outbreak of a third world war. We sincerely hope that none of these measures will be necessary, but I for one believe that what we are proposing to do in this Bill is the right and proper course to take, and I therefore support it.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: It is common ground that a Home Guard will be necessary in time of war. The issue raised by this Bill is whether it is desirable, in view of all the other things which have to be done for the national defence, to raise and start to train the Home Guard now. On that point I will press the Secretary of State for War on the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt). I understood the right hon. Gentleman, in answering that question, to say that he considered that men enlisted into this Force would be capable of carrying out the duties required of them almost as soon as they entered the Force.
Am I right in thinking that was the substance of the reply made to my hon. Friend? If not, if we assume, as he does, that registration and recruitment for this Force begins in January of next year, how soon after that date does the right hon. Gentleman think the men who joined would be adequately trained to perform the duties required of them? How soon after that date would it be? If the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that he can—

Mr. Head: I am sorry. I thought the hon. Member was asking a question to which he expected the Under-Secretary to reply. I am quite willing to reply now if he would prefer it.
I think the situation is that these men who join the Force will start training and I think we can say there will be two different categories; one on the cadre basis where, of course, the period from when they are called on the cadre basis to when they are fully ready will be longer. But those in the Eastern areas will be on an effective basis and after the enlisting and training has been progressing for about two or three months we can take it that those men will be capable of fulfilling their function. Of course, they will get better as time goes on, but after two or three months I think they should be fairly capable.

Mr. Stewart: That is the period I should have expected. We are being asked, therefore, to start in January next year a task that will, in fact, take two or three months to get to the point of readiness. The question to which the House must address itself is whether it is wise to begin a task like that, which


can, admittedly, be completed in a relatively short period of time, in the face of many other demands on manpower and resources caused by the national defence effort, quite apart from calls on our national resources for other but equally necessary purposes.
I deprecate the approach of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who suggested that because we were not entirely in agreement with the Government that it was right to begin this particular Measure at the present time, therefore, there was some lack of good will on our part towards the problem of national defence as a whole. It is a peculiar doctrine that the Opposition are to be accused of a lack of good will towards national defence because they do not see eye to eye with the Government as to the efficiency, the necessity or the right timing of any particular Measure.
I would also ask whether there may not be here a diversion of resources from some necessary military directions, because the operation of the Bill is going to create problems in a number of different fields—equipment, clothing, manpower and accommodation. Regarding equipment. I believe that to be the least serious difficulty of the lot, and I think I understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly when he said that it would be possible to equip this Force up to 125,000, and quite possibly beyond that figure, if necessary, with rifles or Sten guns without doing any injury to either the Regular or Territorial Forces.
I am glad to have the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman on that point, and I hope he will make it quite clear to the Prime Minister, who is always charging the former Government with having mislaid, somehow or another, an enormous supply of rifles, because, as we now discover, that is not so.

Mr. Head: Since the hon. Gentleman has raised the point, may I say that we can cover the equipment of the Home Guard, but the fact is that our stock of rifles between the end of the war and the present time has decreased in a most marked and alarming manner.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will be at the War Office very much longer before discovering very

adequate reasons for that. We are very happy to have his assurance, despite the alarm created by his right hon. Friend in the last Parliament, that there will be adequate rifles and Sten guns for the purpose.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right not to attempt to provide this Force with uniforms at the present time, but I will say to him that he will have to resist pressure from certain quarters to provide it with uniforms at the expense of the Regular Forces. It has begun to appear already from the back benches this afternoon, with the suggestion that Questions will appear on the Order Paper asking for uniforms for this Force. He will have to be resolute and frank with the people who join up from the start in telling them that, desirable as it would be to provide them with uniforms if that could be done properly, it would be desperately dangerous to hurry it up if that meant taking supplies away from the requirements of the Regular and Territorial Forces.
Most serious of all will be the problem created in regard to manpower. Quite clearly, considerable sections of the population are not eligible to join the Home Guard at all. That follows from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and in the very nature of things. Has he considered the two figures—the 130,000 or so which he plans to raise in the first instance, and the total number of the population who could be eligible for the Home Guard? What proportion does that 130,000 represent of the totals who may be eligible? I reckon, from the facts available to me and also to the right hon. Gentleman, that it might be one in 60 or one in 80 of all those who might conceivably be regarded as eligible to enrol in the Home Guard. I think he should consider very carefully whether, in making an appeal of that kind at a time when he is demanding voluntary services for a very large number of purposes, he will get the response that he desires.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there might be some rivalry between those engaged on Civil Defence by resolving the uncertainty about the Home Guard, and by saying to people that they were under a condition of uncertainty no longer, and he suggested that we might get more recruits for the


Home Guard and more for Civil Defence. I am in fairly close touch with those who are active in Civil Defence organisations in my own constituency, and I have no doubt that many other hon. Members will say the same.
Would any of them, from their own experience, say that the people who are keen on Civil Defence in their constituencies were now rejoicing that the Home Guard has been created again, because they feel that the uncertainty is resolved and that they are now likely, therefore, to get people who previously have been hanging back? I thought that argument from the right hon. Gentleman was in the highest degree tenuous and theoretical. Did the right hon. Gentleman have any consultation at all with the people responsible for Civil Defence organisations, and did he ask them what they considered would be the effect on their organisations of the introduction of this Bill?
We have to consider, on this question of manpower, the occupations of the people who may join the Home Guard. Not long ago, in the last Parliament, we had a debate on the progress of re-armament, in which great emphasis was laid on the need for shift working. I think the right hon. Gentleman and those who, under his authority, have to raise and train this Force will come up against that problem very seriously indeed, particularly in certain localities where the pressure of re-armament work is great. He must consider, and certainly his colleagues at the Ministry of Supply will have to consider, whether he can, at the same time, make demands for overtime work and shift working and demand from the population this additional voluntary service all at once.
Further, there is the question of organising a number of men in different occupations, some of whom are on shift work, while some others are not. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that there are certain occupations which, by the nature of things, must preclude the people who follow them from entering the Home Guard, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I wonder whether the War Office have had any consultations with the National Joint Advisory Council for Industry to try to solve this problem.
If they have, the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech introducing this Bill, was not particularly forthcoming. Indeed, the only information we have had so far on this question of occupation and membership of the Home Guard is that Members of Parliament may be members of the Home Guard. No doubt that is a very good beginning, but it still hardly solves the problem which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Most serious of all, I think, will be the problem of accommodation, because, unless they are very careful, the Government are going to give rise to a great number of intolerable difficulties which will frustrate and discourage people who are trying, in a very short time, voluntarily and under considerable difficulties, to join in their country's service. What I think we are all concerned about is that we shall not make an appeal for voluntary effort, and, after six or 12 months, have a collection of frustrated and irritated people as a result. If that happens, it is more likely to be caused by a shortage of accommodation and premises than by anything else.
We are told that indoor training—I do not think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned outdoor training—will be done in hired halls. There are many parts of the country, and particularly the big towns, where it is extremely difficult to get accommodation of that kind regularly at all. Meanwhile, the equipment will, presumably, have to be stored in premises belonging to the Territorial Army. I expect the right hon. Gentleman knows—he probably has had already some complaints on the matter—that the Army Cadet Corps has been regarded as the poor relation of the Territorial Army, and have to take themselves into unwanted corners of Territorial Army premises. There is the danger that he will aggravate that problem.
Without taking up too much time, I want to draw a picture, not necessarily of what will happen—nor, I hope, of what is likely to happen—but of what might happen under the operation of the Bill unless rather more thought is given to this technical material problem than, judging from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, has so far been given. For example, we might have a group of men meeting together to do one, one and a


half or two hours' training one evening. They may meet at a hired hall.
Unfortunately, on this particular occasion, the hall is to be used for a bazaar on the following day and the men are particularly asked not to interfere with a large number of trestle tables and other equipment on pain that if they do the hall may not be available to them in future. When they have solved that difficulty, there is, of course, the fact that their equipment is at premises of the Territorial Association some distance away where, very prudently, it is kept under lock and key, the person having the key not being present on that particular evening.
Then there is the group of men themselves who are to do their training. It may be a piece of continuous training when it is desirable that the same men should be present week after week. Unfortunately, in this particular week some of the men who understand the matter best are absent, possibly because they are on shift work, and others may be hon. Members of this House who are unable to find a pair. I have there, of course, assumed that every possible difficulty happens to fall on one particular night and on one particular group, but will any hon. Member who has experience of any kind of voluntary organisation deny that that is quite likely the kind of thing that may happen unless considerable thought is devoted to petty little details of seeing that everything is ready on the spot? And all that arranging has got to be done by people working in their spare time.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was not to be centralised administration from the War Office. I do not know why, but it always falls to Secretaries of State for War to try to gain confidence by assuring whatever section of the community they are speaking to that their Department will have as little to do with the matter as it is possible to manage. But I hope that if his Department does not go in for over-centralised administration—and I trust it will not—he will, nevertheless, find some means of keeping a sharp eye on the operation of the Home Guard under this Bill when it comes into force so that the kind of fiasco I have been describing does not gradually become more and more the rule instead of the exception. I think that hon. Mem-

bers opposite will be bound to admit that we are pointing out a serious difficulty to which anybody concerned with defence must give his attention.
Inevitably, the Force will make some calls on the time of members either of the Territorial or the Regular Forces. It cannot be run without some assistance, if only in the form of periodic advice from those people. The right hon. Gentleman will have to satisfy himself—and in the later stages of the Bill the House—that that can be done without interfering with the efficiency of the Regular and Territorial Forces. We used repeatedly to be advised by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they occupied these benches that an essential part of the Army side of defence was that one must not tamper with the quality and efficiency of the Regular Army. I hope that side of it will be borne in mind when the problems of this Bill are being worked out.
I am perturbed at the speed with which the Government want, apparently, to rush through the House not only this Measure, but the necessary Regulations. We have been told that it is intended to start registration in January. What does that mean? It means getting all stages of this Bill through Parliament in the remaining two weeks before Christmas, and then, presumably, if Parliament is to have any chance of looking at the Regulations before they actually come into force, they also will have to be laid before the House before Christmas. Can that be done? I think it extremely unlikely. On the other hand, it will be most unfortunate if these Regulations are issued and a Force is raised under them before Parliament has had any opportunity of discussing them.
It is quite true that in some matters we have to give the Executive arm of the Government greater liberty in military and defence matters than in certain other fields, but as we all very well know—and it is an essential part of our Constitution—we insist on a double measure of Parliamentary control over the Executive in military matters. Not sufficient attention appears to have been paid to that when we look at the breakneck pace with which the Government have tried to push through this Measure.
It is quite unnecessary for them to do that, and they would probably do the job better if they paused to consider and tried


to deal with some of the problems which some of my hon. Friends and I have been raising before they tried to rush the Bill and Regulations through Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that a great deal of detail work needs to be done. While I believe it right to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight, I think it unfortunate that more of this detail work that needs to be done was not done before the Bill was originally presented to the House.

7.52 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior - Palmer: We have just listened to the sort of thoughtful and constructive speech which one expects from an ex-Financial Secretary to the War Office, and I am certain we shall look forward to the very valuable advice of the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), on the Committee and remaining stages of this Bill. In answer to his criticism that we are rushing this matter too quickly, I would point out that the party to which I belong have often been criticised by hon. Members opposite for saying, "Not today, but tomorrow," and that when we do grasp the nettle and take action we are criticised for doing so.
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the real reason for this. He knows perfectly well—and so does the ex-Minister of Defence, although he did not show it in his speech—that the Territorial Army will be embodied and formed at the earliest possible moment in the unfortunate event of war and will then go immediately overseas. That is the object of the Territorial Army; it is the first line of reinforcements for our Army overseas, and that is why it is so vitally important that this Force should be raised. Knowing how long it takes to get a volunteer Force on to an effective basis, I for one do not believe that we are starting a minute too soon. I implored hon. Members opposite when they sat on this side of the House to get on with it and to form it on a cadre basis, which they eventually did, and now, I believe, is the time to go one step further than that.
The difficulties which the hon. Gentleman raised are the very things that make people upset and "sour them up," to use a colloquial expression. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do as was suggested in the "Manchester Guardian" today, and see that there is a

Home Guard for the people to join. It is vitally important that all the untidy ends shall be tied up before men are asked to give their service, and that we do not have, as has been evident so often in the past in voluntary organisations, people arriving and finding nothing ready for them, nothing organised, and very little in the way of equipment.
I should like to say a few words on a subject not yet mentioned in this debate and that is the whole question of part-time man-power, of which the Holm, Guard is one of the integral parts. I believe the Government have now to grasp another nettle. They have to decide how we are to deal with the whole subject of the economic use of part-time man-power in this country. The Home Guard, Civil Defence, the Special Constabulary, the hospital Reserve, the Auxiliary Fire Service and fire-watching are all on a voluntary basis, and all being competed for and recruited—under separate Defence Regulations—and administered by separate Departments.
If we are not to make exactly the same mistake as we made in the last war, and if there is not to be this appalling competition between Departments for part-time man-power, and the private armies to which it gives rise, then it is about time one statutory authority was made responsible for co-ordinating the competing claims of the various Departments for part-time man-power. In my view the Minister of Labour should be responsible. If this arrangement is not made we shall have the chaos in this matter that we had during the last war.
The whole question of Civil Defence vis-a-vis the Home Guard is very complicated. There are two chains of administration and command, one civil and one military. It is clear to me that one can never merge the two, otherwise the chains of command and administration will become inextricably muddled. I believe there is a solution on the basis of integration in certain areas.
It needs stressing strongly with regard to the Home Guard that areas differ widely in their requirements. In one area we may need more Civil Defence than Home Guard and vice versa. In other areas the needs may be equal. It is possible, as happened in at least one case during the war, that a company of Home Guard is trained in Civil Defence and


if it comes about that Civil Defence is paramount they are able to take over those duties. I believe that something of that nature will have to be operated in the unfortunate event of future hostilities.
Now we have a situation quite different from the previous one. There is no question for the moment of a seaborne invasion but a very real possibility—I do not say a probability—of an airborne invasion. Why have the Russians seven airborne divisions if they are not going to use them? Let us not forget that this country is the key to the whole Western defence, and there are many reasons why airborne landings on this country, either on a large or small, penny-packet scale, could have a devastating effect on the war effort.
The only way to make certain that that does not happen is to make quite certain that it would fail. We know the Russian mentality in these matters. We have known frequently in the past how the Russians would not take anything on unless there was a five to one chance of success. Let us make the chance less than that. Let us make it an even money chance, if not less, that they would fail.
That is why a new conception of the Home Guard must be inculcated into everybody. The Home Guard must not go back to its old basis of marching with rifles and being prepared to defend the beaches and so on. We have an entirely different and more difficult job to do—the job of anti-sabotage and of rounding up parachutists in the event of a landing. The Commando type of training and the Commando type of weapon and type of fellow are required. The men must have the Commando instinct in them.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite often talk about the democratisation of the Army or the Home Guard, and I should like to say a word about that. I was one of those who long before the war urged that promotion should be from the ranks, as every other reasonable commanding officer did.
Hon. Members opposite should know that the test applied to any young man now before he obtains a commission is one I, at any rate, would not like to go through at my age. It is a very rigorous test of intelligence, leadership and physical fitness. But the prime and only real test is leadership. A man must

have leadership born in him and candidates for commissions are subjected to the very greatest possible test in that regard.
As far as the democratisation of the Home Guard is concerned I wish hon. Members opposite had seen, as I saw, a noble Lord, whom I will not name, crawling down a very wet ditch as a private soldier in the Home Guard with a corporal, his own under-keeper, behind him shouting at him to go faster. Hon. Members opposite should realise that the Home Guard was completely democratic. I know many people who have held high rank in the Army who would be perfectly happy to be private soldiers in the Home Guard and hand the command over to somebody else.
We must also face the problem of creating in the Home Guard mobile military columns. I am quite certain the Regular Army or the Territorial Army will not be able to continue to fulfil that rôle. It would be a most glaring example of counting one's chickens twice to calculate on their doing it. It is a possible task for the Home Guard on a local basis. I do not think the Bristol Home Guard should be brought to Liverpool or vice versa. There are on almost every farm today four-wheeled drive ex-Army lorries and jeeps, and with their aid I believe that the new Home Guard could fulfil that commitment. But to do that they must have proper communications. They cannot rely on telephones but must use wireless communications on the lines of the communications used in the last war.
All this has to be done and it is all very difficult. I hope and pray it will be buttoned up and tidied up before the men are asked to come forward. I agree with hon. Members opposite on that point. We must get these things going so that when the men come forward there are facilities for them to train, and a proper organisation.
My right hon. Friend did not mention anti-aircraft defence. Are the Territorial Army to be responsible for the whole of it or are the Home Guard to take it over in whole or in part? I am sure the House would like an answer.
Finally, I ask the Government to tell the people the reason for taking these steps. We all know the kind of terms on which this debate started from the benches


opposite, and I am sure we all deplore it. The debate is now on a reasonable and constructive basis again, but do not let us forget that there are honourable Members opposite who are saying that this is only a strike-breaking organisation; and if they are saying it in this House they will say it on the public platform.

Mr. Ross: No, we were only asking questions.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Let us tell the people with a strong voice on the radio or through the newspapers the reason for this Bill. Then I am sure that my right hon. Friend will secure all the recruits he requires.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: I do not think the Government have really made out a case for introducing the Bill in its present form at the present time. In fact the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) and the speeches of many of his hon. Friends have confirmed many of the criticisms from this side of the House of the introduction of this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the fact that at present there is a great conflict for voluntary manpower between the various Services; and there has been nothing like sorting out all the problems which would allow the Bill to be presented in a reasonable form.
I want particularly to address myself to these problems of personnel which have been referred to so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), the former Under-Secretary of State for War. One has to remember the atmosphere in which the Home Guard was originally created and which, I believe, is the only sort of atmosphere in which a body of this sort can be brought into being and maintained. All of us who served in the Home Guard remember very well the call made by the Foreign Secretary at that time and the enormous response, almost overnight, to that appeal. We remember how the original Local Defence Volunteers started, as a sort of body of armed citizenry without training, with few weapons and without uniforms. I remember myself being slightly surprised to find myself wandering round a factory of which I was manager, wearing a tin hat,

an arm band and a rifle slung over my shoulder.
At that time all sorts of spontaneous and unorthodox methods for dealing with a possible invasion sprung into being. There were very strange home-made explosives. I well remember attending a training camp where the former Member for Dulwich, with the rank of private, though everybody called him "major", demonstrated some very extraordinary weapons which we could make for ourselves, and the use of shot guns using single ball ammunition. However, as the immediate danger receded and military supplies became more available, the Home Guard became a much more orthodox military body, and finally it became a conscript one.
Thereafter, as the long years of the war proceeded, the problem was one of maintaining the interest and morale of its members. This became increasingly difficult, especially as a large proportion of the members of the Home Guard were industrial workers, very often working long hours, on shift work and under abnormal conditions. Now, as the rearmament programme gets going, the hours of work will probably increase and, no doubt, conditions will become more difficult.
The other problem that most of us found in the Home Guard was that its rôle became rather uncertain. It did a good many guard duties which did not seem to be very necessary, and it was not clear what it was actually supposed to be doing. When hon. Members opposite speak of it acting as a defence against a serious airborne invasion, I think they are exaggerating the rôle which the Home Guard would really perform. I myself never thought that we could do more than hinder the airborne troops for a few short moments while most of us got slaughtered. I doubt if this job could be undertaken by a force based on a small body in permanent being and suddenly enlarged in time of war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) dealt very well with the practical problems involved. It would seem almost impossible that the enemy whom we have in mind would launch an airborne invasion before, at any rate a large part of Europe had been overrun. This. I think, raises rather difficult and also


political problems. One of the problems to which a good deal of reference has been made, and which existed all the time during the existence of the Home Guard, was that of training, finding suitable instructors and officering. I admit that was during the war when training instructors and officers were difficult to obtain, but, after all, I imagine that would be the case at the present time as the Armed Forces are called up.
I think the complaint at the present time is that it is difficult to find sufficient training N.C.O.s and officers for the National Service men who are coming into the Forces and the Territorial Army which is growing as the National Service men come out. I should have thought that to divert to this job officers and N.C.O.s would interfere with the training of National Service men and Territorials. As my hon. Friend said, I think with some justification, there is the serious danger that the officering of the Force will be by local big-wigs and local factory officials. It is a danger of which those of us who have served in the Force in the past are aware.
I doubt also whether in these days, when people are fairly well informed about the modern weapons of war, we could really maintain interest in such a Force if it were equipped only with rifles and Sten guns. I should have thought that if the Force was to feel it had any serious function it would soon demand much more important weapons. I support the views which were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. I should have thought that the first priority in home defence would be defence not against invasion but against air attacks.
I cannot accept the view that the establishment of this Force would increase recruiting to the Civil Defence Service. I should have thought that the conflict of demands between the various Services, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing referred, would lead to a lack of recruitment to Civil Defence which is already very much under-staffed.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I want to get the matter clear. He must remember that the Home Guard at the moment

is to be recruited on a skeleton basis. I know the hon. Gentleman is not trying to misrepresent me, but what I was trying to say is this: Soon—if, indeed, the time has not already come—we must have a co-ordinator for the whole-time voluntary Services in the country, and that should be the Minister of Labour. I do not think that the fact that at this moment there is not a co-ordinator will make a lot of difference to the recruitment of one or the other, but the existence of such a co-ordinator would at least clear the air.

Mr. Albu: I agree. It would be a good idea to have a co-ordinator to work out the available manpower.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he had, in fact, made an examination of the pool of voluntary labour available, but this does not appear to have been done. I agree it would have been better if this had been done and if there had been some plan of co-ordination of the Services before the Bill had been introduced.
I would say to my hon. Friends who fear that this Force might be used against industrial workers that I doubt if this is the case today. Such a Force cannot be organised unless the industrial workers are part of it. Such a Force would consist very largely of industrial workers guarding factories and strong-points. Neither do I believe that the party opposite would want to return to the industrial climate of the first quarter of the century, and I do not believe that anyone with such a dramatic historical sense as the Prime Minister would wish to turn back the pages of history that far.
The danger, as I see it, is that by creating this Force at this time and keeping it in being over what may be a long and indefinite period will mean that it will be subject to increasing demoralisation and that it will become an increasing and wasteful charge on the public expenditure.
I hope I shall not be considered in any way as expressing any lack of appreciation of the work that the Home Guard did or might have to do again, if I quote in my own defence what was said about


a previous Home Guard by the poet Dryden:
The country rings around with loud Alarms,
And raw in Fields the rude Militia swarms;
Mouths without hands; maintained at vast expence,
In peace a charge, in War a weak Defence;
Stout once a Month they march, a blust'ring Band,
And ever, but in times of Need, at hand;
This was the Morn when issuing on the Guard,
Drawn up in Rank and File they stood prepar'd
Of seeming Arms to make a short essay,
Then hasten to be Drunk, the Business of the Day.

8.14 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I do not understand the criticism and the opposition to this Bill from hon. Members opposite. It seems to me to be a natural sequence of the policy adopted by the late Government—namely, conscription and re-armament—and it marches with our policy on this side of the House of negotiating by strength. Although I am not in the confidence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, I should imagine that the real purpose of this "new old Force" is to have somebody here in this country should all the other Forces be taken away under the organisation of the Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I want to add a tribute to the new Secretary of State for War. This was a difficult Bill to introduce, because so much depends on what will be done under it, as has often been said by hon. Members opposite. Nevertheless, he introduced it with much modesty, competence and persuasiveness—and I am sorry he is not here to hear me say so.
There are one or two points I must make about his speech, and the first concerns the one hour a week to be allotted for the training of the new Home Guard. Knowing what was necessary in the old days, that seems to me a very little time to give, but possibly the right hon. Gentleman has in view the fact that most of the Home Guard of the future will have had recent war experience and no doubt will not need the very long training which we had to endure in the years from 1940 to 1945.
Secondly, there is the question of the Is, a week allowance for depreciation of civilian clothes. When I remember the exercises we used to have amongst the rubble in the centre of London, I cannot

believe that Is, a week will compensate for the damage done—and in those days it was done to very hard-wearing uniforms. The time will come, I feel, when either the depreciation allowance will have to be substantially increased or, as was said by hon. Members opposite, a uniform of some sort will have to be provided. It might be denim overalls. After all, we had denim overalls for about two years and we got along fairly well with them.
The reason why I have sat so long in the House today without shifting my gaze from your Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that I had a little experience in the last Home Guard and I thought it might be useful to those upon whom the responsibility will devolve for organising the new Home Guard—although, possibly, I am one of those whom my friend Low would term a Blimp and whose attitude to these matters should not be regarded except as a joke.
I do not want to make a point of this, but I raised and trained and commanded a Home Guard battalion in the fast war. Furthermore, as hon. Members may recall, we had a Home Guard Joint Parliamentary Committee, and I believe that Committee probably did more good than any other organisation of its kind throughout the years of its existence. I had the honour to be its Chairman, but I mention this only because I want to explain why I think what I say may be helpful, All these things are based on experience. The wheel goes round and fresh circumstances present themselves, but inevitably we come back to some experience of similar times in days before.
I welcome the Bill for one reason in particular—because I think it will probably redress some of the disadvantages from which the previous Home Guard suffered. On the last occasion, the Civil Defence Force was early in the field—in 1938. The Home Guard was formed, inevitably, much later, so that a host of the patriotic volunteers were skimmed first by the Civil Defence Service. Because of that, much of our material was either too young or too old for its essential purpose.
Civil Defence has been first in the field again, although, as far as I can gather, the result has so far not been very satisfactory—it seems like a skeleton which has not yet received any clothing. Never-


theless, Civil Defence was first in the field, and although this Bill has not been long delayed since we came into office, I fear the result may be similar to what happened on the last occasion. I hope that the Prime Minister will come to the microphone again to issue one of his familiar challenges to the spirit of our people—and probably hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that might ruin the chances of the Home Guard.

Sir T. Moore: During the five years when the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister of this country his many broadcasts did nothing but inspire and energise and unite this country, and I imagine that the same thing would happen again.
As has been said many times today, the first problem is the constitution and character of this new Force. Like the old Home Guard, it will have no sanctions, no powers of discipline except when mustered and on duty. It will have to rely on the character and personality of the officers, therefore, and, of course, on the loyalty of the men, which was given so fully in the last war. Hon. Members opposite will probably agree that, whether we take the case of a factory or of a ship or of a battalion in the Army, if it is a good factory, or a good ship, or a good battalion the cause probably comes from the top, just as if it is a bad factory or a bad ship or a bad battalion it indicates that there is a bad managing director, or a bad captain or a bad colonel. That makes it essential that the officers chosen, however they are chosen, should be chosen because of their integrity, their character and their leadership.
In the last war, as everyone knows, most of us in the Home Guard bad long left the Army and were ignorant of the modern methods of battle training—and certainly ignorant of modern weapons. That was one of the reasons why it was necessary to establish the expensive training schools and the other forms of instruction. That brings me to a suggestion which has already been made, that the officers of the new Home Guard should have had practical experience and knowledge of the late war, which will make it unnecessary for us again to establish these expensive training institutions. If officers come more or less fresh from the methods

of the last war, they will be able to teach their own men without the necessity for the men to be trained by denuding the Regular Army of instructors.
Hon. Members have already mentioned the difficulty of recruiting men who are working on re-armament or on shift duty, even for only one hour a week training. Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend to consider whether it might be advisable to use some of the refugees in this country?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a very impressive speech, but there are only four Conservative Members in the Chamber.

Sir T. Moore: As a humorist, the hon. Member has no competitor in the House, but I am not debating his humour tonight. I was dealing with the problem of filling the ranks of the new Home Guard. Some years ago we had 187,000 trained Poles in this country. They were men who wanted only one thing—to free their country from Russian occupation. We have a number of such friends—some thousands. We have a great number of refugees of various kinds who would only too gladly, I am sure, if allowed, join this Home Guard and protect the country that has given them sanctuary. I should be glad if the Under-Secretary of State would consider that point.

Mr. J. Slater: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that we should bring any displaced persons into the Home Guard in this country?

Sir T. Moore: Why not? What is wrong with it? That question is typical of hon. Members opposite. They put forward a proposition and can find no answer to it or any argument to support it.
It is very unfortunate that we seem to be divided in this House tonight, not on the principle but certainly on the timing, of this Bill. That is a great pity, because I think that the Home Guard, like foreign policy, should be taken out of party controversy. The Home Guard will consist of Socialists, Liberals and Conservatives throughout the country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will Communists be allowed in?

Sir T. Moore: I do not know. However, it does not seem to be right that there should be this controversy in this House. In the Committee to which I made reference we had Tories, Liberals and Socialists. I admit that those were Coalition days and that that made it very much easier, but the question of the defence of the country should not be a matter of party dispute, and if we combine, as we combined before and can combine again, I believe we shall remove all the obstacles in the House against the Bill, and that will remove any sort of party complex from the whole organisation itself throughout the country. That would be a very great achievement if we could succeed in it.
There was a point raised about the integration, if such it could be called, of the Home Guard and the Civil Defence. I wonder, must they be separated, and why? There is obviously very good reason for it. No doubt my hon. Friend will give us the reason when he replies to the Debate. However, in my own experience of the Home Guard we did a lot of Civil Defence work in the war. Of course, in the villages it was inevitable —and it will be inevitable again—that there was complete integration between the Home Guard and Civil Defence if only because the manpower situation there alone demanded it.
If there is no feasibility of complete integration, I suggest that the Home Guard should be fully acquainted with the duties and responsibilities of Civil Defence. I do not put it in reverse, because that may be difficult, but I think that that would be an admirable form of training, and the Home Guard could carry out the job, at any rate in the smaller places, which the Civil Defence organisation at present does.
I trust, and I suppose everyone of us here prays, that this Home Guard may never be called upon to carry out its purpose; but it has a purpose, and its purpose is to defend this country from either dictation or destruction, and it is our job here in this House to try to make it an organisation adequate for and worthy of that great task.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: When so many more eloquent voices than mine have tried and failed it is scarcely likely

that I shall be able to succeed in impressing upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) why it is that on this side of the House we are not giving more active support to this Bill. For my part I very much regret, having, if I may say so with respect, conceived a great admiration for the Secretary of State for War during the six years we have both been Members of this House, not being able to give wholehearted approval to the first Measure, of any importance at least, he brings before the House.
We all agree that in the event of war the Home Guard will form an important part of the pattern of the defence of this country. Therefore, we regard it as important that when the Home Guard is formed it shall be a success, and we do not believe that the present time and the present circumstances are those in which this organisation can be brought into being, or brought into being once again with a sufficient amount of success to justify it.
There is, of course, the other ground of criticism of some of the roles for which the Home Guard is cast and some of the ideas underlying the present framework of its organisation. I shall not go over the ground so many hon. Members have been over tonight about the geographical division of the country, but it certainly does seem to me a little odd to advertise to the world in advance, when the Home Guard is being formed to deal, as the Secretary of State said, with incidents; that incidents are likely to be dealt with less efficiently in Glasgow and Birmingham than in Leeds or Newcastle; and that, in effect, is what the geographical division means.
I hope I am not misquoting the right hon. Gentleman, but I do regard with the utmost apprehension the use of the Home Guard for—to use his own words, I think—"dealing with sabotage." I do not know what "dealing with sabotage" means exactly, but if it means any kind of work to prevent sabotage, other than merely guarding certain points, then I can conceive of no organisation less fitted to deal with sabotage than the Home Guard.

Mr. Head: Would the hon. Gentleman mind? May I put his mind at rest? I apologise if I did not make that clear,


but the intention is purely that of guarding vulnerable points—not of a kind of secret organisation existing in factories to prevent anybody dropping a pebble into some vital piece of machinery, but purely a protective rôle of guarding vulnerable points.

Mr. Wells: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that piece of information. I do not dissent for one moment from what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) said about the dangers of trying to provide uniform for the Home Guard at the present time. I think that this offer of £2 12s. a year compensation for damage to clothing will rapidly be found to be wholly inadequate, and I think that the fact of there not being clothing provided by the State for this purpose will cause a lot of domestic irritation. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that it would be most dangerous at the present time to attempt to provide the Home Guard with uniforms, and I think it is clear that pressure of that kind will be applied, and applied quite soon; but in my view there are reasons for this pressure being applied that the right hon. Gentleman may find it very hard to resist.
I do not want to obtrude upon what is a kind of defence debate unnecessary considerations of law because I happen to be a lawyer, but the fact was that at the time of the formation of the Home Guard in 1940—and I was very much concerned with this because at the time I was serving in the War Office in the branch responsible for the organisation and administration of the Home Guard—at the time of the formation of the Force under the name of the Local Defence Volunteers in 1940 there was great apprehension expressed, which was enhanced at that time by articles in the German Press, that Forces not provided with uniform would be liable to be treated as franc-tireurs and, under the rules of war, shot out of hand and not treated as prisoners.

Mr. Head: This raises a point which may well cause anxiety among volunteers for this Force, and I should perhaps have included a reference to it in my speech. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have, since the end of the last war, signed a convention with all the

powers concerned, including any possible foe, that an individual that is equipped with a steel helmet, a rifle and an armband is taken as a responsible member of the armed forces of the country to which he is accredited, and under that international law, cannot be shot as a franc-tireur by any of those who signed that treaty.

Mr. Wells: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that it is probable that under international law, even before the Convention, troops provided with an armband would, purely from the legal standpoint, have been regarded as having sufficient means of identification not to have been in danger. But what happens when one is discussing this not as a nice academic point in this House, or elsewhere, as to what is a suitable means of identification, and what happens in the heat of the moment are rather different. However. I would not wish to labour this point from one point of view, because I think that it is quite doubtful, in the event of hostilities of the kind contemplated breaking out, whether the Forces opposed to us will pay much attention to the rules of war in that respect.
I do, however, submit to the right hon. Gentleman that this is one of those points which have a very considerable effect on the morale of the Force. If we are to form a Force and bring it into being, but not to give it any immediate task and not to provide it with a proper uniform, and we are to raise, all these difficulties that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) pointed out so forcibly, we are then running into the danger of destroying the spirit of the Force a long time before the Force is called upon to form any public task of importance.
Right hon. and hon. Members, when in Opposition, frequently criticised the Government that I was endeavouring to support on the ground that it was trying to do too much at once; and this is the ground on which, in my submission, the right hon. Gentleman is open to criticism tonight. There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the need for a Home Guard in certain eventualities; there is no difference as to its importance; but we do believe that this is the wrong time for bringing into being


a Force whose rôle is so important, at a moment when we are unable to guarantee what ought to be guaranteed to make sure of its success.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) has left the Chamber. It is rather the habit of some hon. Gentlemen opposite to disappear as soon as they have made their speeches.

Mr. J. D. Murray: I think that it is fair to say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been in the House most of the day.

Mr. Ross: That applies to a good many of us. He did, however, make some statement which I think demands some explanation from himself, or perhaps from the Secretary of State for War, as to what exactly is to be the rôle of the Home Guard.
The hon. and gallant Member said, "They are to be there when all other Forces are taken away." He evidently visualises that this Bill will create the one force by which Britain is to be defended in the event of war. Then we had the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) telling us what is the task of the Home Guard. He said that it was to deal with airborne invasion, and that what we wanted was not people between the ages of 18 and 65 who were not otherwise occupied with warlike pursuits, but Commando types.
I wonder if he listened to the Secretary of State for War when he told us exactly who would be there and how they would be armed. I have heard nothing at all about any other equipment than rifles and possibly Sten guns. Even he has a very vague conception as to what the task of the Home Guard is to be, otherwise there would not be all this misunderstanding on this side of the House on the question of dealing with saboteurs, and on the question of the Home Guard with rifles and Sten guns protecting aerodromes. I think it is time that the Secretary of State for War came down from the clouds.
I think there has been considerable misunderstanding of the attitude of the Opposition to this Bill. Our attitude to the Bill is dictated not by motives of political popularity. Anyone who suggests that we are not opposing it because it would

be unpopular to do so does not know the British nation or the mood of the nation today.
If the Under-Secretary, who is here, I think, with a majority of 600 for the Scotstoun division of Glasgow, told people in Glasgow that one of his first tasks at the House of Commons would be to participate in the organisation of the Home Guard, I doubt very much whether his popularity would be increased; in fact, I doubt very much whether his majority of 600 would be in existence today. We are actuated by the same considerations as moved the Government to introduce the Bill, namely, what is best for the defence of this country in the present circumstances.
We have a different idea of the rôle and timing of the Home Guard. We do not laugh at the Home Guard or at the spirit of the Home Guard. Many of us were proud of the part that we played in the Home Guard during the war. I never was a member of it, but I remember in the Shetlands, when I was attached to H.L.I. as an officer, having to go to various unknown parts to give some training in infantry work to the farmers and the fishermen, who, with a spirit of comradeship and with a desire to get something done in the hour of the country's need, had volunteered for service in the Home Guard.
We want that spirit today, and we shall only get it when it is needed most, namely, in a time of emergency. The Secretary of State for War cannot create a spirit of emergency. To my mind all that this Bill is going to do is to irritate and annoy a section of our people, and in the more timorous it will create a certain amount of panic. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr was quite right when he said that the Prime Minister should go on the air and make a full disclosure as to why it is necessary to re-form the Home Guard.
The Secretary of State looks back to the spirit that was in the Home Guard during the war, but he forgets that the Force only comes into operation in time of war. We cannot prepare for some unforeseen circumstances which are going to arise, nor can we envisage the way in which the war is going to be conducted. The right hon. Gentleman gave no adequate justification for the introduction of the Bill. He mentioned something about


it stopping competition in manpower for Civil Defence, that people were waiting before entering Civil Defence to see whether there was going to be a Home Guard or not. That is not true, nor do I think it logical. My recollection of Questions from this side of the House in the last Parliament was that they suggested that the reason why people were not entering Civil Defence was because the classification of reserved occupations had not been declared, and that is more necessary than anything else.
To my mind Civil Defence is priority No. 1 after the build-up of the Regular Forces. It is the building up and the attainment of the targets in Civil Defence, to which the Secretary of State should be applying his mind in concert with his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The training in Civil Defence is much longer and much more varied. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the training required for the tasks of the Home Guard in peace-time is very slight, and more particularly they will be able to draw upon a reserve of experienced men, all of whom are going to be available on this occasion unlike the last occasion.
Everyone knows that there has been a spurt throughout the country in recruitment for the Civil Defence forces, but we are far from the attainment of a target that is even reasonably satisfactory. I think that in introducing the Home Guard at this particular time, the right hon. Gentleman is going to undermine recruitment for that much more vital service. The Civil Defence tasks will start right at the beginning of the war. The next war is not going to be a war of land forces as far as we can judge, and even from our experience of the last war we can say that it is going to be a war of bombing. The first people to go into operation may not even be our own land Forces but our Civil Defence Forces.
In my view there has been far too lighthearted an approach to this problem. The Secretary of State for War should have deferred to the Home Secretary and agreed to a build-up of the Civil Defence Forces. That is why we criticise this Bill today. Civil Defence must come first, and this introduction of the Home Guard is going to create a competition between the two Forces.
What is in the Bill is surprisingly bare. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr said that it was a skeleton that needed clothing. It may be my Celtic imagination, but I imagined the skeleton to be clothed and saw it finish up as a scarecrow. When the hon. and gallant Member said there was no competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in the matter of humour in this House, he forgot his own unconscious effort.
We are only told two things by the Secretary of State in this Bill—that there is to be no whole-time service and no service away from home—apart from the fact that it is to be voluntary. He has told us remarkably little. Everything else is to be dealt with by Regulation or Order of the Army Council. It ill becomes a party that has for so long talked about the democratic rights of Parliament to deal with legislation on the Floor of the House when it affects the lives and conditions of the people that it should be handing away this right to criticise, to probe and to discuss. What is going to happen to the people in the War Office if we take this matter away from the ordinary Member of the House of Commons?
The question has been raised more than once about the officers, and how this Home Guard will be built up. We all want a democratic Home Guard but, from my recollection of the things that were said in the country during the last war, not every part of the country had a democratic Home Guard. We have heard an hon. and gallant brigadier below the Gangway saying that it is not just people with military experience that we want as officers of the Home Guard but people who are important in the area. From my point of view I say that is not the kind of officer we want. We want people who are most fit for the job, irrespective of where they come from or the rank and station they have in life.
What guarantee have we that we shall get it? The House of Commons will have no right to ask Questions about it or to deal with any Regulation or Order. It is time we had. The Financial Secretary had better apply his mind to the matter. He will find that in the Scotstoun area of Glasgow people are very much concerned about democracy, even in the Home Guard. There is the question of pensions, allowances and grants, which


all have to be dealt with by Order and Regulation. We are handing away far too many important matters.

Mr. Shinwell: They are not subject to Prayer.

Mr. Ross: I am speaking about them because they are not subject to Prayer. Hon. Members are completely muzzled, and that has been done by a party that has been going round the country talking against Regulations.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: And about "Britain strong and free"—strong by means of the Home Guard and free by means of the Tory Party.

Mr. Ross: I am very obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. I hope we shall get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman telling us why he has changed his mind as well as his side in this matter.
I want to know about these geographical divisions of the country. The right hon. Gentleman did not try to justify them. Why is there to be this build-up of the Home Guard in one particular part of Britain? Let the right hon. Gentleman look to his left, where he will be told that Scotstoun is just as important as Skegness.

An Hon. Member: Far more important.

Mr. Head: It is too far north.

Mr. Ross: Edinburgh is more important than Eastbourne. Am I right this time? There is the whole industrial belt of Scotland, where there are many aerodromes, factories and other vulnerable points.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And Prestwick.

Mr. Ross: I do not think we are allowed to mention Prestwick unless the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr is here. It is almost out of order. How many Home Guard are to be organised in Scotland under this skeleton-without-clothing scheme? There are 25,000 for England and Wales, outside this small section or square, or geographical octagonal, that the right hon. Gentleman has brought before us today. Are we to have any at all in Scotland? I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman made no reference to this, and I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary will. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that, although there may be a danger of inva-

sion, there is no danger of the invasion of Scotland, or does he trust more to the loyalty and military spirit of the Scottish people to enable them to carry on and deal with the matter without any organisation? After all, we are getting no uniforms, and I doubt very much whether we shall get anything else under the Bill.
If we are to have a Home Guard in Scotland, do not insult us by offering us £2 12s. a year. I disagree with some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen opposite. If people are going voluntarily into the Home Guard, they are not looking for £2 12s. if we cannot give them a uniform. Even if we offered them a glass of whiskey they would not swallow that insult.
We have here not some emergency measure but what the Conservative Party see as the normal pattern of defence for this country in peace-time. The manner in which this organisation has been begun, and the way in which it has been sprung on the people at a time when the Foreign Secretaries are discussing peace, will not add to our defence but will create panic and be a blow even against peace. I sincerely hope that when we come to discuss the Bill during the Committee stage the Secretary of State will be prepared to listen to the constructive Amendments which we shall put forward.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: I should like to begin with those things upon which the House is very broadly agreed. It is not universally agreed perhaps, but there is a very large measure of agreement, that a Home Guard in the event of war is a right and democratic thing. Even if war were declared to be imminent in the opinion of the Government, it would also be a right thing to raise a Home Guard. The Opposition certainly take that view.
However, I should like the House to recollect—it is within the recollection of the House—that the Secretary of State made it very clear—I was very glad that he did—that in his view, and in the view of the Government, war was not imminent today, so that that situation did not arise. It is because we are not opposed to a Home Guard of the right kind and the right form at the right time that we are not opposing the Second Reading of the Bill; but it is because we do not think


that this form is right and, more important, that this time is right that we cannot support the Bill as drafted, and shall have very important Amendments to propose.
I now turn to what we feel are the objections to the Bill as it is, and I take what is perhaps the smallest of them first. First of all, this is a very extreme example of delegated legislation. I personally do not share the more extreme opposition to delegated legislation which we heard so often in the last Parliament. I think that in the present day world, some measure of delegated legislation is an absolute necessity. We cannot, however, forbear to point out the rather remarkable fact that this extreme example of it comes from right hon. and hon. Members opposite who spoke in such horror—I do not think I use too strong a term—of delegated legislation in the last Parliament.
Nor can we really accept the argument that delegated legislation, pushed to this point, at any rate, is quite all right as long as it is on a military subject. In some ways, almost the contrary is the case. In some ways, in military questions the House has always wished to take and to retain a specially close watch on the powers which it gives to the Executive.
Passing to a more important difficulty which we feel, I should like an explanation from the Under-Secretary, when he replies, of the geographical spread which the Bill makes in the proposed enrolment of the Home Guard. I do not say that there is not an explanation, but we have not yet heard it. I am not at all clear why it is thought much more urgent to enrol the Home Guard in the Eastern counties—in East Anglia—rather than in the rest of the country. I can only presume it is because the Government considers that those areas are geographically the more exposed part of the country.
The Secretary of State spoke about seaborne invasion. I should have thought that by far the greater danger today, as has been mentioned repeatedly on both sides of the House during the Debate, is airborne invasion, and that that is one in regard to which it is more realistic to look for some assistance at all events from the Home Guard.
The Secretary of State rather twitted us for thinking in terms of the last war, but surely this provision of the Home Guard in the east of the country, and not
in the west, seems to be harking back almost to a time previous to the air age. [Interruption.] There may be an explanation—if so, I shall be very interested to have it; but I should have thought that in the air age the degree of risk throughout the country was almost the same. It takes only a few minutes longer for any attacking aircraft to reach the west of the country instead of the east, and it is very difficult at first sight, although there may be a perfectly good explanation, to see why this sharp geographical differentiation is made.
Where does London come into this? This aspect was pointed out by a London Member on the other side of the House. We can hardly suppose that London is unimportant or that it is difficult to reach by air attack from the Continent of Europe—we have a good deal of experience of that. Therefore, it is strange that we have not yet been told where London comes into this scheme.
Now, I come to the main difficulty which we feel about the Bill, the main objection that we have to it: that is, undoubtedly, the question not of the form of the Bill so much as its timing. The Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that the intention behind the Bill, although, of course, it cannot be read from its text, is that enrolment and the raising of the Force should start as early as possible, and he spoke of as early as next January. There are very serious objections to that; many of them have been mentioned by hon. and right hon. Friends of mine on this side of the House.
I wish to deal first with the main argument which the Secretary of State put before us in favour of this immediate raising of the Home Guard. He called attention to what in the War Office has come to be called "the Reserve Army," of which the Territorial Army is the main, but by no means the exclusive part. He emphasised—I think he was right in doing so—that the formation, equipment and filling out with manpower of our Reserve Army was perhaps the centrepiece of all our preparations of our land forces today.
Undoubtedly great efforts are being made to get the maximum number of divisions available from the Reserve Army and to bring them to a state of readiness in the shortest possible time.


That, of course, has been the object of the Z scheme, the calling up of Z reservists which was carried through during the past year and was perhaps the principal effort which the War Department made during 1951 in this respect.
It is for that purpose that National Service men, as my right hon. Friend the ex-Minister of Defence pointed out, who are coming out of all the Forces at the rate of 8,000 or 9,000 a month, are passing into the Reserve Army. Therefore, we are building up in this country for the first time in its history large trained Reserve Forces of a kind this country has never known before, and behind them there stand several million Z reservists, men trained in the last war, who each year are being brought back by the hundred thousand into contact with units.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, on the one hand this gives us a very different military situation than the country ever knew in the pre-1914 or the pre-1939 periods, but it also places a very great strain on our resources. It is our big main effort. To make available equipment, uniforms and the like places a great strain on those resources, and a great strain is also placed on resources which are on the whole even more scarce and even more precious—the organisational resources of the War Office, to which there is a real limit.
I do not think the Secretary of State doubts all this, in fact he emphasised it, and, as I understood him, it was his argument that the formation in the immediate future of the Home Guard would help to bring divisions of the Reserve Army to readiness quicker in the early weeks of war. He spoke of a period of the first three or four weeks, and I quite agree with him that in the event of war that would be a highly critical period.
He put forward the argument—I think it was very much the best and strongest argument put forward for immediate enrolment of the Home Guard put forward during the whole day—that if in those early three weeks after embodiment and mobilisation there were a Home Guard in existence it could relieve the Reserve Army, which was being hurriedly brought up to readiness for battle, of distractions which otherwise it would have to undergo in having to guard particularly vulner-

able points and having to be at readiness in case of air invasion and the like.
There is force, and we should all admit it, in that argument. But is it really quite as strong as it seems at first sight? We are now talking, as he very carefully pointed out, of a three or four weeks' period, and the whole Reserve Army and the divisions which we are forming, mainly from the nucleus of the Territorial Army, cannot all be brought up to battle readiness in that early period. There must be a series of contingents of the Reserve Army, three or four divisions, which are the first wave of the Reserve Army to be brought to readiness.
While that is going on other divisions of the Reserve Army will have been called up and be undergoing training. Those second and third waves of the Reserve Army will surely be available and will not be subject to the distraction of being located near particularly vulnerable points in those three or four weeks. I should have thought the fact that they might undertake those duties would not have been a very serious distraction from their preparation for readiness, which could not, in any case, be done in three or four weeks. That could not be done even by the very first division of the Reserve.
In other words, the Reserve Army must come up division by division, one after the other. Therefore, it seems to me a rather over-simplified picture to think that the existence of the nucleus of a Home Guard would in that three or four weeks be very much of an advantage, at any rate in preventing distraction from what I entirely agree would be the exceedingly important task of bringing the maximum number of divisions of the Reserve Army to battle readiness in the minimum possible time.
I do not want to put it higher than that it is possible to over-state a good deal of the advantage which the early formation of a Home Guard will give in that respect. I think the Government should weigh most carefully what seem to us to be the serious disadvantages of the early enrolment—the beginning of next year for example—of a Home Guard Force. It is this question of whether or not we want an early enrolment that the House is discussing, and about which there is a difference of opinion.
The Secretary of State told us rightly that rifles and Sten guns are available, and there is no difficulty about that. On the other hand there is the gravest difficulty about uniforms; in fact it amounts to an impossibility to provide them. I agree with the doubts and difficulties expressed by my hon. Friends as to the effect on the morale of the man who is called up in January and asked to continue for months, and we hope and believe years, in the Home Guard without having a uniform at all for a long time. I think that will create great psychological difficulties, and difficulties for the officers who have to keep these units together.
If hon. Members think that uniforms can be quickly and easily provided for the Home Guard, in addition to those already urgently needed for other Armed Forces, they should look into the matter more carefully. That is not the case, nor have the Government claimed it to be the case. Further, there is the difficulty of wear and tear on civilian clothing during training and the attempts of the Government to provide compensation.
Great difficulties do arise there, and in these material elements like uniform and premises which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) emphasised, and of which there is a great shortage. One cannot deny that. If we come to an early enrolment of the Home Guard these important material aspects will compete with the needs of the Territorial Army, the Supplementary Reserve and the Reserve Army as a whole.
The priority question, therefore, inevitably arises, but it is not so much in these material priorities and shortages that the main difficulties arise. It is in the training and organisational effort, which is inevitably limited, and which, for instance, was strained to its very limits by the Z Reserve scheme last year.
I would claim, not for the late Government, but for the War Office and the Army, and the Territorial Army above all, that that Z Reserve scheme was carried through with great success by the most devoted labours of the Territorial officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the volunteer Territorial Army and also by the excellent spirit of the Z Reservists. From first-hand observa-

tion of it, however, it was a very great strain on all concerned and on the War Office itself.
Is it, therefore, really wise, unless we are to get some enormous gain, which I cannot possibly believe we shall, to superimpose on all the other tasks of the War Office this further and very difficult task —if it is to be well done and if it is not well done it had better not be done at all —of raising the Home Guard at this early date? We see an inevitable competition of priorities, and we cannot believe that a case has really been made out for the early enrolment of the Home Guard at the beginning of next year.
We feel that, on balance—and I agree that it is a balance of considerations—it is more likely to hamper the preparations of the Reserve Army than to help them. I entirely agree with the Secretary of State that the overriding consideration is the preparation of the Reserve Army. The most important consideration of all is that of our defences in the sphere of land Forces.
Now I turn from the adverse effect which we fear the early enrolment of the Home Guard will have on the rest of our land Forces, and the Reserve Army in particular, to the question of the effect which it will have on the Home Guard itself. As we have been assured by the Secretary of State and all other speakers from that side of the House, this is to be a purely voluntary effort. In purely voluntary efforts of this sort, and certainly in peace-time, psychological considerations are of great importance and the timing of the effort is a delicate question. I am not sure, but it may be that, in January, there will be an enthusiastic response.

Major Tufton Beamish: The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman will not help, anyway.

Mr. Strachey: That is not a remark which is at all called for. However, let it go.
I make it perfectly clear that I do not think it is wise, for reasons for which I have given and for more reasons which I shall give, to have this early enrolment, but even if a favourable response is received in January, that will not be the decisive thing. As we know, the Home Guard will have to be maintained in existence for a long period of months and


years, and it may well be that, in order to have the best Home Guard at the point, if ever, when it would be needed, we can start too early. There is quite as much danger of starting too early as there is of starting too late.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during his period of office, he gave instructions to Territorial Army Associations to lay the foundations for the enrolment of the Home Guard, and, if he did so, what were the precise instructions which he gave to them?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly, I can easily do that. I can very easily repeat the statements which I made from the other side in the last Parliament and which, I think, cover those points very clearly. We did, of course, as the hon. Member suggests, instruct Territorial Army Associations, and the Regular Commands for that matter, to make preparations and to lay the foundations of a Home Guard right up to the point of enrolment. I repeat what I said a few minutes ago—and I think the hon. Gentleman was present—that what we are arguing about is precisely this question of whether here and now we should go beyond that to the point of enrolment.
We are all agreed that we should lay these foundations, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman reminds us that they were in fact laid by the previous Government. That is perfectly true, but should we now go beyond that and have early enrolment? There is something to be said for doing so, I do not deny for one moment, but I think that, on balance, it is a mistake to do so for the reasons I am endeavouring to put before the House. The last reason I gave was the fear—and it is a very real fear, I think—that the enthusiasm of the potential volunteer to the Home Guard cannot be sustained for what we believe and hope will be the very long period for which it will have to be sustained if he is enrolled as early as next January.
But then there is another side to the matter, and one which has been referred to by several hon. Members on these benches. The nation is being asked to make a sustained effort in every field today, in defence, in enrolment into the Regular Armed Forces and, of course, in

the productive field in a very large rearmament programme, and in the economic field as a whole, which is just as important an objective, in order to achieve and maintain the solvency of the country, to sustain our standard of life and to reach a level of exports which sustains our balance of payments.
All this taken together, as has been emphasised from all sides, will require an enormous and sustained effort. Again, is it wise to put one more very considerable effort on the back of the willing horse by asking for the early enrolment of the Home Guard in January? This effort will fall on the workers in productive industry, as has been pointed out, and on managements in industry, who are very hard pressed and very hard worked today. We doubt very seriously indeed whether from the point of view of the national effort as a whole it is wise. We concluded, when in office—and it is still our view—that on balance it was not wise to go beyond the point of basic preparation to this further stage of early enrolment.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Having stated his objections to this Bill and the doubts which he has about its practicability, would the right hon. Gentleman now say whether in the event of this Measure being passed through this House and finally receiving the Royal Assent it is his intention and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends to do everything possible to make the object of the Bill a success?

Mr. Strachey: Certainly. What we shall do is to put our view on what is the best way in which the country's defences can be organised. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like 1934."] These are exactly the same views that we held during the whole of the last Parliament on this and other matters. We shall continue constructive criticism of the defence measures which have been put forward. I do not think any right hon. or hon. Members opposite could say the criticisms we are putting forward today, even if they do not agree with them, are not constructive criticisms. Quite obviously they are.
To sum up the argument I have put to the House, we do not believe this is a good Bill or a good way of achieving this purpose because it does not fit the real


international situation as we see it and as the Secretary of State for War himself has envisaged it when he spoke. We think the character of the struggle in which we are engaged—and we are engaged in the struggle both nationally and internationally—is obviously not one of immediate crisis. It is not a sprint, it is a very long contest in which we are engaged. It is one in which we have to sustain the effort for a very long time and in which we should think very carefully about imposing any extra degree of strain at any particular time.
Therefore, this Bill, which envisages the raising and enrolment of the Home Guard at as early a date, as January is not, we think, a suitable Measure really to increase the degree of defence and security that the country can have.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Having said that, would the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience in office, give an indication of what date he would consider would be a suitable date to bring forward this Bill?

Mr. Strachey: I should have thought that I had endeavoured to make that clear. So long as it is the case, as he himself said very clearly in introducing this Bill, that the Secretary of State for War does not consider war imminent, we do not think it wise to pass to the enrolment of the Home Guard. Therefore, while we shall not divide the House on this Bill on Second Reading because we do not oppose the principle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I was about to explain that we shall not divide the House on Second Reading because, as I said in my opening remarks, we do not consider a Home Guard of the right kind at the right time to be wrong. On the contrary, we support that very strongly as a useful contribution to our defences and a thoroughly democratic thing.
But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the,ormer Minister of Defence made it perfectly clear, we shall introduce very drastic Amendments on the Committee stage which will seek to postpone the main operation of this Bill—the enrolling of the Home Guard—until such time as the House takes a further decision by Affirmative Resolution.

9.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War outlined in his opening speech the scope of this Bill and explained in no inconsiderable detail the Regulations which will follow in due course. In all our plans we have fortunately much experience behind us. We are in no way breaking entirely new ground and it is important the House should understand—because I think a number of Members indicated they did not understand—the various phases of these steps towards the reconstitution of the Home Guard.
The passing of the Bill—and I am delighted to hear the House, is not going to divide against it at this stage, at any rate—is the first phase. The second one will be the registration—not the enrolment—of those who are concerned and interested in becoming members of the Home Guard. There is a distinction there, because that means that early in January something like a business reply card will be used by those who wish to join the Home Guard asking for more information. The next phase will be the drafting and the presentation of the Regulations which have been discussed so acutely this evening, and to which I am coming later. The penultimate phase will be the actual enrolment from among those who have registered into the Home Guard.
The last phase, which we all devoutly hope will not be necessary, would be the expansion of the Home Guard beyond the present limits if an emergency should arise. The House will have noticed that our intentions are much more modest than the guesses of the Press have led the public to expect. There they have ranged from a million Home Guard to a mobile hard-hitting force of 200,000. Nobody, so far as I am aware, "bought" the low field. If so, they would have won.
Hon. Members must not complain if we have interjected a note of urgency into this legislation. There were one or two complaints indicated at the speed with which it had been presented. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), said in the Debate on the Address:
We are not surprised at the lack of legislative intentions in the Gracious Speech.


The right hon. Gentleman the former Prime Minister said in the same debate:
The first part"—
that is of the Amendment the Opposition had tabled—
challenges the absence of any clearly-defined, thought-out policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 837 and 932.]
Really, they cannot say that and then criticise us when we do present some policy to the House. We have, in fact, imparted some of the ginger for which the "Manchester Guardian" asked in its leading article of this morning.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We cannot live on ginger.

Mr. Hutchison: No, but the hon. Member is very often pretty full of it.
The chief criticism to which this Bill has been subjected is that of timing. Timing has never in military matters been a strong suit of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The neglect to support Governments between the wars cost us dear, and if it had not been for the exertions and leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister it would probably have cost us a great deal more.
We must really throw out of our minds the type of thought which was voiced by the right hon. Gentleman the former Prime Minister in 1934 when he said that at the back of Ministers' minds is always the belief in the anarchic principle of self-defence. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was then pleading for collective security. But this is collective security. What have we got in the world just now which is a stronger indication of collective security than the action of the United Nations in Korea and the building up of a Western European Defence Force of which the Home Guard is, in fact, a humble part?
Immediately after Hitler had marched into Austria there was the statement of Sir Stafford Cripps that "the workers must make it clear beyond all doubt that they will not support the Government or its armaments in its mad policy which it is now pursuing." It seemed to me that I detected that same school of thought which I fondly hoped had been exorcised by the misfortunes of the last war.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is quoting, with dislike, the words of political leaders in this country who are

followed by a very large number of people and who are regarded with respect by a very large number of people in this country. Does he want support for the Home Guard from those who feel politically with people like ourselves, or is this merely a party device?

Mr. Hutchison: I am merely dealing with the criticism that the timing is wrong. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you want a united country?"] Of course we want a united country. I had to answer the criticism on timing, because we believe we are better judges of timing than hon. Members opposite.
The raising of the Home Guard nucleus is all part of the policy of negotiation from strength. Hon. Members opposite say it is not necessary just now, but since it will not interfere with the advancement of recruitment or the equipment of the Regular and Territorial Forces—and my right hon. Friend has made that quite clear—then there can scarcely be any objection on that score. Since, also, it will not interfere with production, because the whole plan has been devised so that it shall not interfere with production, there seems to be no objection on that score.
Since the cost is negligible, there can be no objection on that score—a mere £2½ million, of which the right hon. Gentleman made great play, which astonishes me when it comes from one of the leaders of a Government which introduced a £4,700 million programme. For him to get excited over £2½ million for the Home Guard seemed to suggest that he had lost all sense of proportion.
We are left with the objection that the Home Guard is not necessary, but if it is one part of the general defence policy, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite argue that it is not necessary, do they intend also to argue that part of the remainder of the defence policy is not necessary?

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman said that we objected principally to this Bill on the question of timing. Some very serious arguments were advanced on this score and, amongst other things, we explained that we objected on the question of timing because we did not want to get enthusiasts into the Home Guard now, before it was necessary, and then to see them lose their enthusiasm later The Secretary of State explained that he did


not think it would take a matter of more than a few days to obtain an enrolled Home Guard to perform the tasks necessary. Instead of answering our criticism that this is not the time to do it but that we should wait until an emergency, the Under-Secretary of State has gone into an historical survey of no great value. Will he now answer them?

Mr. Hutchison: I will come to that later, but it seems to me that the most important criticism was the question of timing and I have spent this part of my speech in answering that criticism. If hon. Members opposite say that this part of the general defence programme is not necessary, are they going to argue that recruiting for the Regular Services is not necessary? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Why should they single out one part of the general picture of national defence in order to say that that part is not necessary but that 100 per cent. of the other parts is necessary?

Mr. Ross: Answer our questions and not your own.

Mr. Hutchison: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who has had the advantage of making a speech, will allow me to make mine and to come to the points at issue.
Although the Home Guard is the little brother of these other Forces, in some ways it is more impressive because it is evidence of the ordinary citizen in this country, voluntarily and unpaid, giving up his spare time to strengthen his country's defences. Equally important in this consideration—perhaps more important—is our view and belief that in taking this step of raising the nucleus of the Home Guard we are taking an important step in the avoidance of war, which is the great and enduring purpose of all hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I am supported in that point of view by no less an authority than Lord Pakenham, who said in another place in January this year that he strongly supported that point of view, and ended by saying:
The Civil Defence forces and the Home Guard did great work last time.
Well, hon. Members, if they cheer that, must support his point of view and mine that this is an important step being taken towards the avoidance of war, and if hon.

Gentlemen read his speech they will see those words. Nor, indeed, can any foreign tongue accuse us, by this step we are taking, of any aggressive intentions. It would be hard indeed to conceive a more peaceful army than the Home Guard.
The Bill has also been criticised because it is a mere skeleton in its present form, upon which the flesh will be hung by means of Orders and Regulations which will follow later. But those Orders and Regulations will be laid before Parliament; they will be amenable to Questions and to Adjournment debates. Indeed, this Bill gives more Parliamentary control than at present obtains under the Territorial Army Acts and much of King's Regulations. It follows closely the pattern of the Defence Regulations of 1940 under which the L.D.V. was raised; and similar provisions were contained in the Army Reserve Act brought in by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1950. So there are plenty of precedents for it.
There is, however, one other Parliamentary safeguard that has not yet been noticed tonight, and that is that the Army Act is subject to annual review by this House, and so any Regulations or series of Regulations can be challenged and discussed annually. Great play has been made about the part we on these benches played—and I played a part in that, too—when we sat on those benches opposite, in criticising delegated legislation without provision for positive affirmative or negative procedure. However, when we were protesting, as on the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, and the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act we were protesting against Measures which imposed something upon the citizens whether they liked it or not.
This Bill imposes nothing on anyone. It is completely voluntary. If people do not like it they have only to give one month's clear notice to clear out. We believe that there is all the difference in the world between subjecting Measures of that kind and a Measure of this kind to the treatment such as that to which Acts like the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act might have been subjected. Indeed, the flow of the Regulations, with frequent changes taking place, particularly in emergency,


would make it extremely difficult to administer the Force if one had to follow that system. This Bill imposes nothing, and, as "The Times," in a leader this morning said,
Although this is delegated legislation it is not objectionable delegated legislation.
Now I want to come to some of the actual questions which were put to me, so far as I have been able to note them down, by hon. Members opposite in their speeches. I think that the first alarum and excursion raised about the raising of this Force for strike breaking was answered from their own benches by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). Of course there is no intention at all in normal times of peace of using a unit of the Home Guard in any way to load lorries or break strikes or unload ships. There is no such intention. I have no doubt that we shall thresh this matter out, and, perhaps, devise something touching it on Committee stage.
The next thing which was raised—I think by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and also by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—was that of competition with the Civil Defence services. The Civil Defence services have had since November, 1949, to enlist their people, and I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that if they have not enlisted between then and now they are not going to enlist in them at all. [Interruption.] Well, they have had very nearly two years to do it. What is the reason holding them back? [An HON. MEMBER: "No urgency."] If there is no urgency they may care to come into the Home Guard instead.
In any case there will be no competition between the Civil Defence and the Home Guard in many areas of the country. Civil Defence, in fact, is not required in the rural areas and, in the main, the Home Guard will not have their primary rôle in the built-up areas. In the wide and open country areas there is not the same rôle for Civil Defence to play as in the cities. That is my interpretation of it.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) who spoke about mobilising troops and Forces

at the time of an invasion, and who said that they were already available to repel invasion by air or in any other way. But that is just what we want to avoid. We want to avoid having a Regular striking Force in the country tied down and immobilised by having to guard vulnerable points, which the Home Guard could take over, and thus release them from that particular rôle.
Then there was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), in which he said that we were stronger now than in 1939. That may be so, but today we are relatively not stronger when compared with a potential enemy. He, on his own figures, refuted his own argument when he told us of the strength of Russia in divisions, tanks and first-line aircraft.
Hon. Members in other parts of the House, notably the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner), the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), all stressed the importance of the quality of the battalion commander. I quite agree, and I have no doubt that when Commands get their instructions and the order to start the thing going they will pay great attention to that matter. I quite agree with those hon. Members who say that experience in the last World War will be of the greatest value to these Home Guard battalions.
Questions were asked about the position in London in the matter of Home Guard strength and battalions. The intention is that in London the battalions should only be of cadre type, 50 strong. We do not think that there is a big rôle in a built-up area of that kind for the Home Guard. Then, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) asked that a census should be made of vehicles, to provide a limited amount of mobility. I had no doubt that commanders will be thinking about that. We do not see the Home Guard in a highly-mobile rôle, but no doubt there will be some organisation of limited mobility for the Home Guard.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and other hon. Members asked about a single organisation, composing both Home Guard and Civil Defence services. This question was gone into extremely carefully by a work-


ing party set up by our predecessors in office, and they came to the conclusion that Civil Defence forces are essentially passive in character and under the control of local authorities. The Home Guard, on the other hand, is a fighting organisation under military command. This fundamental difference in character makes it impossible to fit a single comprehensive Force into the existing civilian and military structure of command. With that I agree.
Hon. Members also asked what was the significance of the line from Flam-borough Head to Selsey Bill. It is because, as my right hon. Friend said, this is an exposed area, but particularly because it is in that area that aerodromes and their ancillary organisations are to be found, and consequently it is in that area that we anticipate hitting back. That would probably be the first target of the enemy. I think that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), and others, when they were criticising some of the duties of the Home Guard, were thinking that they would be sitting on vulnerable points as a sort of interior guard. We do not defend vulnerable points as a rule by sitting upon them. Generally, there is dispersal outwards and formation in depth.
I should tell the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), that there is no question in the first six months of the Home Guard playing any anti-aircraft rôle and manning antiaircraft guns. That, as in the last war may come later, but not at this stage.
There are a good many other questions which we were asked which I did not have time to note down, but I should like to say that our criterion for officers in the Home Guard or, indeed, in any service, is purely efficiency. A question was asked about the T.U.C., and I should like to say that we have been in touch with them and with the British Employers' Federation.

Mr. Shinwell: Since when?

Mr. Hutchison: Two or three days ago, and we said that the details of these Regulations will be discussed through the National Joint Advisory Council at a later stage. I understand from my right hon. Friend that the acknowledgment to that letter came within the last day or two.

Mr. Shinwell: I inquired only two days ago from Sir Vincent Tewson, the Secretary of the T.U.C., as to whether the T.U.C. had been consulted. He said "No." Neither, I understand, has the National Joint Advisory Council been consulted.

Mr. Head: If I may be permitted to intervene, we were in touch with the T.U.C. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the general outline of these Regulations was considered as a matter of some urgency, and while we were considering them I wrote a letter to Sir Vincent Tewson giving him a broad outline of the scheme. I said that we could discuss the details later with the T.U.C. through the National Joint Advisory Council. I had an answer from him yesterday saying that the T.U.C. would make use of the machinery of the National Joint Advisory Council.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Shinwell: I shall do nothing of the sort. I repeat that only two days ago I spoke to Sir Vincent Tewson on the telephone at his own request, as I had made previous inquiries. He informed me that the T.U.C. had not been consulted and so far as he knew neither had the National Joint Advisory Council. I shall not withdraw.

Mr. Hutchison: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now allow me to intervene in this debate. Since he will not withdraw, perhaps he will make the necessary inquiries tomorrow, when he will find that my right hon. Friend is correct.
The framework and nucleus which is planned in this Bill is to enable us more quickly to raise a citizen Army such as we had in the last war. We shall have snatched some precious days and weeks, as my right hon. Friend indicated, out of the time-table of an emergency. The Bill has been subject to criticism naturally enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not answer them?"] I have spent the last quarter of an hour doing nothing else but picking out questions put by hon. Members opposite, and I have done my best to answer them.
Some of the criticisms have been helpful and some less so. The views which have been expressed on all sides of the House will be given due consideration and


weight when we are considering the final form which the Regulations are to take. I hope the whole House will give this Bill its blessing. I believe it will, not only because of the way it has been treated this evening, but because of the remarks which were made in the debate on the Army Estimates in March this year, where it was clearly shown by hon. Members on the other side of the House that they all recognised the need for preparation of a Home Guard.
It was, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) who used these words:
It is fully agreed that we must begin some preparations for the possible formation in case of war of a Home Guard."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 855.]
I think that we are going a little further than he had in mind.

Mr. Strachey: Mr. Strachey indicated assent.

Mr. Hutchison: These proposals were supported by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), and who should know better the necessity for making preparations against air raids than he, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw. The only question is at what point they stop. That was quite a time ago. I submit that we have advanced to a further stage in which the modest proposals we now put can, with satisfaction and with greater efficiency to the Forces of this country, be put on the Statute Book.
I appeal to all hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading in so conclusive a form as to leave no doubt in the minds of those who are watching us abroad of the determination of this country to defend its shores. I ask all employers to put no bar or barrier in the way. I ask all those who are between the ages of 18 and 65 and who have no prior commitments to offer themselves. Many of them will find comrades of the last war there and a camaradie which-endures to this day. Nothing binds men in such close friendship as common hardships shared and common risks run.
A good response is important to this Home Guard. Any man who joins will know that he is playing his part, however

small, in the defence of his country. To be a Home Guard will become a hallmark of a patriot, a democrat and a man of public spirit. To command a Home Guard unit will be the hall-mark of a diplomat and a leader.
In Committee we shall, of course, welcome constructive criticisms, but I say to hon. Members opposite: play the party game if you must in lesser matters, but leave the defence of this country out of it.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: That is quite unwarrantable. We have a well argued case on military grounds as to what should have precedence, and the hon. Member has done extremely badly in bringing the matter before the House and trying to raise the utmost party differences.

Mr. Peart: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, would he clear up the point about consultation with the T.U.C., for consultation must be a two-way traffic? The impression has been given that the Government have merely notified the T.U.C. Could we have the reply of the T.U.C. to the letter of the Secretary of State for War?

Hon. Members: And the date

Mr. Head: I can assure the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that I am not trying to conceal anything in any way, and I am not making any imputation that the statement that he made was not perfectly correct. I never indicated in my statement that my letter had reached Sir Vincent Tewson before he said he had not seen or heard of it. I would say on the Regulations and the working out of their general details, that we kept Sir Vincent Tewson and all others informed. We have guaranteed that when the detailed Regulations have been worked out they will be consulted through the National Joint Advisory Council.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Drewe.]

Orders of the Day — HOME GUARD [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish the Home Guard and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenditure of any Government Department incurred in consequence of the coming into operation of the said Act.—[Mr. Head.]

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch) rose—

The Chairman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman rise to oppose?

Mr. Bing: Yes, Sir Charles.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding. The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND BYSSINOSIS BENEFIT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of benefit out of the Industral Injuries Fund to or in respect of certain persons who are totally disabled or die from pneumoconiosis or byssinosis, not being or having been insured in respect of those diseases respectively under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or entitled to workmen's compensation in respect thereof, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament and the payment out of the Industrial Injuries Fund into the Exchequer of any sums so payable by virtue of provisions of the said Act of the present Session applying sections three to five of the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND BYSSINOSIS BENEFIT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND BYSSINOSIS BENEFIT SCHEMES)

10.2 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out from "die" to the end of line 16, and to insert:
or have died at any time after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
At the conclusion of the Second Reading debate on the Bill on Friday my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his reply that we would do what we could so far as fatal cases are concerned to bring within the scope of the Bill deaths which had occurred before the scheme to be made under the Bill comes into operation. My hon. Friend said:
We should like to think again on the question of back-dating for those dependants of a deceased person who died before the commencement of the scheme … How far we can go back must depend on administrative practicability, which must be one of the two criteria by which we look at all the Amendments to this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 1,393.]
The undertaking given by my hon. Friend was made in response to requests from both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), was the first to suggest that we might back-date the death benefits. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), and later in the debate the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), suggested that we might be able to date the benefits back for a period of three years.
In pursuant of my hon. Friend's undertaking, I tabled an Amendment as soon as possible—Monday was the first date on which it was possible for me to table an Amendment—which would have taken in all fatal cases arising after 30th June of this year. An Amendment to my Amendment was tabled on the following day by hon. Gentlemen opposite who suggest that from the point of view of the private scheme inaugurated and conducted by the National Union of Mineworkers


a more convenient date would be 1st February, 1950.
It appeared after that Amendment had been tabled that the National Union of Mineworkers had actual records of fatal cases of pneumoconiosis which had not qualified either for Workmen's Compensation or for benefits under the Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme, which had occurred since 1st February, 1950. There has, therefore, been a general request that we should date back the benefits in the fatal cases as far as possible.
After giving careful consideration to the representations made from both sides of the Committee and to what was said to me privately in relation to the scheme conducted by the National Union of Mineworkers, I came to the conclusion that it would be feasible to date these payments back to 1st January, 1950. That will be a period of about two years altogether from the time when the Scheme. I hope, gains the approval of the House.
This is an unusual thing to have done, but I have had some previous experience in this class of matter. When I was at the Home Office and the pneumoconiosis question came in in 1943, we made some provision for the old cases; and similarly when we first legislated regarding byssinosis in 1940.
These are very special cases—they excite the deepest sympathy in all quarters of the Committee—of men who in the course of their employment contract a disease which is quite incurable and may finally lead to their death. We have gone, I think, as far as is administratively possible to provide for the said cases which otherwise would have failed to qualify under the Bill. Wherever one draws the line in a situation of this kind, there are bound to be cases which fall on the wrong side of it. I hope, however, that hon. Members will appreciate that I have gone as far as possible to meet hard cases which can arise under the Bill, and I only hope that there will be no competition between the two sides of the Committee in claiming credit for what is being done.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to raise one or two points on the Bill, and I do not for a moment want to

raise them in a controversial sense. I am rather sorry that some of my colleagues did not rise in the discussion on the Amendment to thank the right hon. Gentleman for an Amendment which we all appreciate and which represents a very definite improvement.
Speaking as a Member for Oldham. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman the case of byssinosis, which is, of course, precisely the same as the pneumoconiosis case, with which I had to deal as a solicitor in other parts of the country. I should have thought that the desire of the whole Committee in this matter is that we are going to try to provide for the man who is suffering from byssinosis and who is virtually totally incapacitated; in other words, the man who is so seriously and dangerously incapacitated that there can be no hope for him of regular work in the future, and who has not received a lump settlement and is not in receipt of any payment under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act or from Workmen's Compensation.
Let me say at once that the Bill does not do that. I want to raise the matter on two separate grounds, and I commit the indiscretion by saying that one or two sentences may be strictly out of order, Sir Charles, as relating to Clause 2, but I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I make one speech which covers the point I am making although some of the points arise on Clause 2 (3) as controlling Clause 2 (1).
Let me take the history of this matter so far as byssinosis is concerned. It was settled very late, I think, in about 1940. I remember the long negotiations which went on to try to get it scheduled at all. If we take a look at the history of the dust diseases before the pneumoconiosis boards and various other boards were established, we find that there was the wretched procedure of the certifying surgeon which enabled any insurance company at any time to demand that a man be submitted to a medical examination at 10 days notice.
Indeed, let us face it, they could send him to Dr. Brown one week, Dr. Jones a fortnight later, and Dr. Smith three weeks later, and could go on doing that until they found a doctor who said he had recovered. I am not attacking anyone about this, but it happened and we


all know it happened. Then it was referred to the certifying officer who had to examine the man in a quarter of an hour and come to the conclusion whether he was suffering from the disease or not and once he said that the man had not got the disease, normally he had finished his compensation for the rest of his life.

Mr. Tom Brown: The medical referee.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, I meant the medical referee. That was the procedure and none of us who have been associated with industrial diseases can fail to recall hundreds of cases of men who came back and said, "I have lost my case and cannot go to arbitration or do anything about it," who subsequently got aggravated symptoms of this disease.
If now, Sir Charles, you will be good enough to look at the clock while I make my suggestion, I think that if paragraph (b) of Clause 2 were submitted to examination the right hon. Gentleman would meet the wishes of the Committee if he amended that paragraph by eliminating the reference to those who had a few weeks worker's compensation but who were subsequently found to be suffering from the disease.
We have three sets of people in Oldham suffering from byssinosis—the man drawing benefit, he does not come in; the man who never got benefit because he got this disease before 1940 and could not qualify, he comes in: and the man who contracted the disease after 1940 and by some legal measures or otherwise ceased to be entitled to compensation of any kind but is as incapacitated as the first two, totally incapacitated and suffering just as much. By the operation of this Clause he will be left out, unless we can devise some reasonable Amendment. I can accept the fact that if he had a lump sum settlement we have to eliminate him. However small, that was the risk he had to take. Sometimes it was a very harsh and cruel risk, but he was wiped off because the theory was that he had settled his case once and for all.
I hope I am making this clear; the right hon. Gentleman looks a little worried. This is what happened in 1941: a man gets the disease and goes to the Board.

It does not happen so much in byssinosis cases but in silicosis my hon. Friends would say there were hundreds of cases because it happened before the Board existed and the medical referee would wipe the man off. As luck would have it, byssinosis came in about the same time as the Board was established and there was not much of the old medical procedure. So the silicosis man might have lost the case in 1936 or 1937 when the Board was not established and there was no appeal against the certificate. That is a plain fact which every hon. Member on this side of the Committee will confirm.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is it not a fact that a man suffering from silicosis can now at any time apply to go before a pneumoconiosis board, because in my view they can?

Mr. Hale: Yes, that is an arguable proposition, but it is very difficult when one has been out of the industry for years, and very few know their rights. It is difficult to take up an old case, and I assure my hon. Friend that there are many people who are now just as much incapacitated from silicosis, or pneumoconiosis, or asbestosis, or byssinosis as the rest, who are not entitled to benefit because of technical clauses and provisions which existed in years gone by. So a modest Amendment to Clause 2 would include everybody who had been totally incapacitated from any of these diseases and who have not benefited.
10.15 p.m.
I wish to say a word about the totally incapacitated, because I am very worried about that term. So far as I know there is no judicial definition of it. So far as I remember there is no definition in the Industrial Injuries Act.

Dr. H. Morgan: There never has been.

Mr. Hale: Therefore I am really worried about how far the judicial interpretation of "totally incapacitated" goes in the intention of this Clause. I am certain that there are good intentions on both sides of the Committee in this matter and that we are working together.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, although I have not thought fit to put it down—because I do not want to put down an Amendment which might appear to be a challenge on a matter


about which we are substantially agreed—that the real treatment for silicosis or byssinosis is to try to find the sufferers something to do. I see that my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Labour is listening. He has a great record in this matter in connection with trying to find work at home for the people suffering from these diseases. There is nothing more important than finding them something to do, because in the latter stages of this disease there is a sort of settled misery which develops as a result of it and we have to try to find for the sufferer some form of occupation, however slight.
I have had something to do in the past with the sort of interpretation the courts of appeal have put on the Workmen's Compensation Act on total incapacity. It may be interpreted as being totally incapacitated, but that is not really what we mean. What we mean is seriously, permanently incapacitated, with not a reasonable hope of recovery, but still able to perform some limited service and to take on some occupational work. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would meet the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee if he could on Report stage put some sort of definition which would meet that particular matter.
This is an admirable Bill which we all welcome. In spite of the limited number of people to whom it applies it has given many of us who have been closely associated with these diseases more emotional reaction than many more important things. As a Member for Oldham I must say that there are other industrial diseases; but the dust diseases are in a sense the most chronic and in many ways the most permanent of all. If a man is suffering from miners' nystagmus many of my colleagues will say he can recover from that. But it can bring about a state of nervous disability, and in my experience more suicide cases are associated with miners' nystagmus than with any other disease. If we could bring them in it would be so much the better for Oldham.
There is the other disease, epitheliomatous cancer, or "spinner's cancer" as it is called. It used to be a dreadful scourge in the cotton district. And also Scrothal E.C. which may be found among chimney sweeps and so on. But within the terms of this Financial Resolution we cannot expand the Bill to cover them.

I would say with real sincerity the right hon. Gentleman has made a very good start in this matter in the Amendment which he has just moved. It was a generous and considerate Amendment which we all received with gratitude and pleasure. I hope he will take note of this and see that this fairly simple Measure, which has given so much pleasure will be the first of a series of Measures to do justice to all suffering from industrial diseases.
I would say what I said to the House two or three months ago. If one applies the simple test, and here I am dealing with the totally and partially incapacitated, it is: "Have you got an industrial disease and are you to some extent incapacitated by it?" That really is the simple test. And if we dissociate it from all the others, whether there was silica dust there, or whether the man was employed so long in the industry, or exposed to it, what would it cost the country? It would give a real feeling of justice to many people who are suffering at the moment from a very genuine feeling of injustice and dismay at the way they have been treated. It would mean taking them off the National Health benefit and putting them on to the Industrial Injuries benefit. It does not cost very much, and it would cut out the expensive tribunals which deal with these matters, and would save a good deal in that way.
I believe that is the real way of handling industrial diseases. If one contracts silicosis, it does not matter whether one got it in the mines of South Wales or on the sands of the Egyptian desert; one has got it, and one wants benefit and treatment. If we can do this, I believe it would be really worth while.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: On behalf of my hon. Friends behind me, I wish to express my thanks to the Minister for the decision he has reached in regard to the first Amendment. We did make private representations, which he received very courteously and sympathetically.
I know that it is not the usual custom to make legislation of this nature retrospective. I have been in the right hon. Gentleman's position, and have been faced with a demand from different hon. Members to make retrospective certain provisions in Bills which I have had the honour of piloting through the House. It


has always been recognised that it is necessary to draw the line somewhere. Inevitably, there are some people on one side of that line who are disappointed.
I think the Minister regarded the representations made to him as being based on justice and practicability, and practicability is essential in these cases. After due consideration, he has decided in his wisdom to include this Amendment. I think we all agree that there are exceptions to every rule; he has wisely made an exception this time, and I thank him for it.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I think we all welcome the way in which the Minister has received the representations made to him from all sides, and particularly the fact that he has found it possible to extend the operation of the Bill in respect of the dependants of people who died after 31st December, 1949.
I would like to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), on the question of total incapacity. I was very much worried during the Second Reading debate as to what was the exact definition of total incapacity, and I suggested that something like the growing of cabbages might exclude a person from benefit. In reply, the Parliamentary Secretary was able to assure me that that was not the case, and his words went a long way towards removing my doubts, because he said:
I can assure them that it is not a test of earnings. It is purely a test of unemployability, and therefore that factor will not enter into the matter at all, If the men are totally disabled, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, then it does not matter that they—let them: we hope they will—grow cabbages or have any other pastime they can to help them forget the tragic state they are in."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 1389.]
I believe it would be impracticable to divorce this Bill from the Workmen's Compensation Acts in this respect, because this Bill does depend upon the Workmen's Compensation Acts and the conditions which are there laid down for the whole of its definitions and operation.

Mr. Tom Brown: I wish to join with the three previous speakers in expressing our gratitude to the Minister of National Insurance for agreeing to the concession so willingly. He has responded to the

plea that so many of us on these benches put forward during the Second Reading debate for widening the scope, and we are extremely grateful to him.
But what brought me to my feet in addition to that was Clause 1 (5), which says:
The power to make a scheme under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, but the Minister shall not make any such scheme unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.
That is a usual Clause in Bills submitted to this House. My plea to the Minister and to the permanent officials of his Department is to make that scheme, or the words of the scheme, or the Regulations, understandable by the ordinary man. I see the right hon. Gentleman is smiling, but we are dealing here with two industries in particular, coal and cotton, and many of these unfortunate persons do not understand the legal jargon often put into Regulations.
I am making a plea now that the Regulation or Statutory Instrument—whatever name one gives it—should be made as simple as possible. I have had some experience in dealing with these Regulations in days gone by, and I always say that they are a cross between a jig-saw puzzle and a crossword puzzle. We wish to avoid that if we can. In pleading with the Minister for this, I know that I am asking for something, but we on these benches always are. As I say, I would ask the Minister to instruct his permanent officials to see that the draft as laid before the House can be understood by the ordinary people in the coal and cotton industries.

Mr. Edwin Leather: I will not detain the Committee for more than a minute or two because we had a very thorough discussion on this question on Second Reading. I, like hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, naturally welcome very heartily the Amendment proposed by the Minister to this Clause. However, I feel that it would be wrong to conclude the debate on the Motion before us without making the following observations.
The Parliamentary Secretary dealt at great length with questions put to him, but in my mind there are two points which are certainly not at all clear. That may be due entirely to my inexperience in dealing with these technical matters.


Obviously, however, this scheme cannot be brought into force for another two or three months, and during that time all of us, and particularly those hon. Members representing constituencies in which large numbers of people are concerned in this matter, will be receiving letters and interviewing people in our consulting rooms asking for advice, and I am not clear as to where the line has been drawn.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us quite clearly what his definition of "total" was not, but he did not make it clear, at least not to me, what his definition was. I was very glad to receive his assurance that a man who was able, despite his hopeless incapacity, to earn a few shillings here and there "on the side," would be allowed to do so. But I should be grateful if, before we agree to the Clause standing part of the Bill, he would give the Committee a little further guidance as to how he anticipates the line will be drawn.
Secondly, both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary gave us assurances that the moment this Bill became law and had dealt with these total cases—the worst cases—they would immediately give consideration to the partially disabled, with whom so many of us on all sides of the Committee are vitally concerned.
I think I am right in recalling that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary said they would be happy to consider any schemes or ideas put to them from the T.U.C., the N.U.M. or any other source. In the course of my remarks on Second Reading I asked if we could have a clearer idea of what precisely the difficulties were. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the reason why this Clause refers only to the totally disabled was because of the great fear of swamping the medical system, the panels, the experts, and so on.
10.30 p.m.
He did not tell us what was necessary. He states what is possible, but what is necessary to put this defect right? Can he possibly say a little more specifically, and precisely, what more is needed to alter this Clause in the way in which I think all of us would like to alter it? He did not say specifically what were the practical difficulties.
He gave an assurance that steps were being taken to find out the numbers.

Could he tell us more about that point, and when the answer is given, will he assure us that he will not leave it entirely to outside bodies to take the initiative, but will press on to deal with the whole sweep of this problem and not just this small—some us may think it quite small—but none the less, very vital part of the problem which this Bill faces?

Mr. Harold Finch: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, because the various broad aspects of the Bill were discussed at ample length on second reading last Friday. But I would join in thanking those responsible for this Clause for antedating claims by dependants of those who have died from 1st January, 1950. That will bring in quite a large number of widows who have lost their husbands as a result of pneumoconiosis, particularly in the mining industry, dating back to this date. This gesture will be greatly appreciated in the mining districts, and particularly in South Wales where there is such a high incidence of this disease.
Let me assure the Minister that there will be no administrative difficulties in going back to January last year among those in the mining industry, because the miners, out of contributions of a penny a week, have initiated a system whereby they would pay benefits to widows antedated to February, 1950; therefore, as a result of that scheme, all cases of death from pneumoconiosis since then are on record. When a man died, examinations were made, and these records were placed with the medical board. So, there will be no difficulty in this passing this Bill into law in the matter of claims on behalf of widows whose husbands have died from pneumoconiosis in this period.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that we have carried this matter another stage forward in getting security for men suffering from pneumoconiosis, and for their dependants. A man totally disabled by the disease is now compensated whether he left the industry in 1939 or 1920, and that is going back many years: even before the original scheme of 1928. Every totally disabled man, or dependant, from a specified industry, is now covered.
That is a great advance, and we are only left, as has been said, with the partial cases. I join with other hon. Members in hoping that that matter will


be dealt with as expeditiously as possible; it is under discussion in the T.U.C. and the National Union of Mineworkers, and we shall watch on this side of the Committee for the day when these partially disabled men can be brought into a scheme, and I hope that every step will be taken to cover men in specified industries so that they may get compensation.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I want to support what was said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and plead for the scheme to be drafted as simply as possible. Many of us not versed in the law find it difficult to explain these things to constituents. How much more difficult it is for those who are affected to understand. If it is not possible to make the drafting simpler, could we not have a longer Explanatory Memorandum? Surely that is not beyond the wit of the Parliamentary draftsmen.

Mr. J. D. Murray: I believe that we should give credit where credit is due, and while the right hon. Gentleman is only carrying the policy forward, he has, in fact, been responsible for taking it this step forward. I was pleased to hear the references of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) to the money that has been paid by the miners themselves from 1st February into the fatal accidents scheme. Their contribution together with that of the National Coal Board has saved the country a great deal more than is known. Those of us on this side who represent the mining industry thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting the date back to 1st January, 1950. He will have brought great happiness to many of the people affected by this Bill.

Dr. Stross: I should like to add my thanks on behalf of many of my constituents, some of whom certainly will be affected by the back-dating of the benefits to the dependants of those who have died within the limit now set. I am under strict instructions from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to say on his behalf how grateful he is that the suggestion he and others put forward has been accepted.
On the matter of total incapacity, is it not a matter of fact that these men are

not going to appear before the medical boards set up to carry out the 1948 Act, but will go before the pneumoconiosis boards and be assessed in the old way as fit for moderate work, heavy work, light work, or the fourth possibility of total incapacity? In that case, will they not be able to go before arbitration in the county court and be able to prove, say, that light work is not available? That is the tendency now. Here we are dealing with total incapacity. If we are not able to do that in the county court, then I want to put it to the Minister that we must ask for the most liberal interpretation possible of what "totally incapacitated" means.

Mr. Hale: I speak with reluctance, because it is 10 years since I was dealing with the matter on a day-to-day basis, but as far as I understand it, there is no access to the county court at all.

Dr. Stross: If that is the case—and I am sure the Minister will say "Yea" or "Nay" on the point; although I am certain my hon. Friend is right—then we are right in pressing for a very liberal interpretation of what "totally incapacitated" means. I speak for an area in North Staffordshire which has been ravaged by this disease. It affects not only the miners but also the pottery workers. For years we had 50 deaths a year from it, and the average still runs at 40 deaths a year. This is a matter of great importance to us, and I should like an answer to the question which I put.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Like other hon. Members, I am very pleased indeed that this Bill, which had its First reading in the last Parliament, should have been brought forward so quickly by the new Government. It has brought great pleasure to myself and to my colleagues on this side of the Committee, and I think to many hon. Members opposite, and certainly has brought great pleasure to the miners I represent.
One point worries me. As far as I could understand it from the Second Reading of the Bill, the main reason why we are covering only those who are wholly incapacitated is that otherwise there would be such a flooding of the pneumoconiosis medical boards by applicants that it would be very difficult to


deal with the cases. From the experience I have had of the miners who come to see me regularly at week-ends, I am afraid that even as the Bill is framed we shall not overcome the difficulty. In many areas a miner is not always completely unfit when he has to leave the pit. In those areas there is little chance of that man finding any employment other than employment inside the mines.
I know from my own village that there are quite a number of men who are waiting until this Bill is on the Statute Book to come forward for examination by the pneumoconiosis medical boards. It may be that quite a number of these men will be found to be 100 per cent. unfit but, on the other hand, it may be that quite a number of them will be classed as 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. unfit, as are those miners who are already covered by the Industrial Injuries Act. In consequence, from the experience I have of cases in my own village and in my constituency, I feel we have not yet overcome this difficulty.
We are very glad indeed of the step forward which has been taken by the Bill. It is bringing justice to a field in which we have felt for a very long time that there has been serious injustice. In view of the consultation which is taking place with the National Union of Mineworkers, in particular, and with the T.U.C., I hope that very soon we shall have a further Bill to take care of those who are partially disabled by pneumoconiosis. One of the great tragedies of this disease, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), is that these men feel they are of no further use in life. They become very depressed. If those who are not totally incapacitated could find work in the mining villages that feeling would rapidly disappear.

The hairman: I think the hon. Lady is getting rather wide of the subject under discussion.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry, Sir Charles, but I think that I have made my point. Before sitting down, I will just say again how pleased we are on this side of the Committee that this Bill is soon to go on to the Statute Book.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I should like to support the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) in regard to Statutory Instruments promulgated under this Clause being easy to interpret. It has always seemed to me that when a Statutory Instrument is made under a Clause like this it should be easy to operate from the point of view of those who have to work it, and that it should be easily understood and followed by Members of Parliament who may have to consult it and by the ordinary man who will be affected by it.
May I make one suggestion about these Statutory Instruments? Most people do not carry in their heads a very full knowledge of all the Bills which have been passed and all the schemes which have been proposed in the last half century. Therefore, merely to speak in the Explanatory Memorandum about the Industrial Injuries Insurance Act, 1946, may not convey much to the ordinary person. It would be helpful if the types of case were stated. If it could be explained what cases are affected by this legislation it would be more helpful to the ordinary person than a mere reference to Acts of Parliament.

Mr. D. J. Williams: May I support the plea made by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown)? I do not know that it is specially necessary to draft the Regulations in language which a layman understands, because most of the people affected by this Bill never read Statutory Regulations. I suggest to the Minister that the Ministry of National Insurance has by this time had wide experience of dealing with this type of case. I know that in regard to all the Regulations of the last five or six years the Ministry has issued at all its offices leaflets in simple language explaining to the recipients what they are entitled to get. I suggest that the Ministry should draft a leaflet explaining the provisions of this Bill and supply it, through all its offices, to the people disabled by pneumoconiosis.
The people who are still in the mining areas do not need this leaflet because they are usually still members of the Miners' Federation. But over the last 25 years


large numbers of these people have left the coalfields. In South Wales during the war there was a mass emigration of thousands of miners who have never come back. They are now in London and the Midlands and no longer members of the Miners' Union. They are not in touch with the miners' officials. If they are disabled they are in touch with the Ministry of National Insurance. If at the National Insurance offices they are provided with leaflets explaining what they are entitled to, that will solve the problem raised by the hon. Member for Ince. I think that this would help those who particularly need help, namely, those who have left the mining districts. I hope the Minister will consider the possibility of doing something on these lines.

Mr. Peake: I think I should say a few words now, especially as the Amendment I proposed has been so well received in all parts of the Committee. I am sure it will give general satisfaction throughout the country.
The debate has ranged rather widely on this Clause. In fact, the hon. Member for Oldham West (Mr. Hale) said that he would speak about Clause 2 (1, d) on the Motion that the Clause stand part. I think I had better leave that until we reach Clause 2 and not endeavour to deal with it now. Three hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have stressed the importance of giving publicity to our scheme and of having it explained, if possible, in language which ordinary people can understand. We certainly will take all reasonable steps to publicise the fact that the scheme has come into operation, and we will also publish a leaflet which I will see is in as simple language as possible.
The question has been raised once more with regard to the possible inclusion at a later date of cases of partial incapacity. I did explain the difficulties on the Second Reading. It goes far beyond the question of merely flooding the medical panels which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) suggested was the main difficulty. There are other formidable difficulties as well, and I cannot go further than repeat the undertaking I gave on Second Reading that we shall give careful consideration to any scheme put forward by any responsible body to

deal with cases of partial incapacity. I think hon. Members realise that the difficulties are very formidable and we certainly cannot include such cases in the present Bill.
Questions were also raised about the meaning of the words "total incapacity." My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate that this did not mean the same thing as 100 per cent. disability in the industrial injuries scheme. He quoted the words of Lord Loreburn in a Workmen's Compensation case defining total incapacity as "a man who has a physical defect which makes his labour unsaleable in any market reasonably accessible to him."

Mr. Hale: That is surely the "odd lot" definition which does not apply broadly to industrial injuries but only to a special section?

Mr. Peake: I was not saying that it applied to the industrial injuries scheme. I was saying that that was the definition given by Lord Loreburn in a Compensation Case.

Mr. Hale: That is only for the special case of a man who has a very special injury which, because of the peculiar nature of the injury, incapacitates him from employment in the area where he was formerly employed. That is what is called an "odd lot"—one special sort of incapacity.

Mr. Peake: I will not enter into dispute with the hon. Gentleman on Workmen's Compensation law at this stage. I say that the purpose of the Bill is to deal with cases which are time-barred from obtaining Workmen's Compensation. It is to remove the time bars and put these cases into the same position as they would have been if they had rights under Workmen's Compensation. That is the sole purpose of the Bill, and the words must be construed for the purpose of this Bill as they have been in the past under Workmen's Compensation.
The administration of the scheme will be under the Administrative Board set up—under the Act of 1951—by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. E. Summerskill) to administer the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951, and by the Medical Board. I think Mr. Paul Sandlands,


K.C., is Chairman of the Administrative Board, and all hon. Members can have full confidence that the words will be interpreted in a reasonable way.
I think I have replied to most of the questions, and I suggest that we might now proceed to another Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(RESTRICTIONS ON SCOPE OF SCHEMES.)

Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "twenty," and insert "ten."
The reason I have brought this forward is that I think the modern medical view suggests that 10 years rather than 20 is the correct period. I recognise that there are certain inherent difficulties in the way of the Minister accepting this Amendment, which perhaps may not be as simple as it appears. But my plea is supported by the facts as we know them in these days. Our knowledge of this condition has improved in recent years, although it is by no means complete.
We speak of four conditions of this type that affect workers. One is mill fever, which affects them in the early stages with cough, fever and chills, sometimes nausea and vomiting, and they quickly get better if they are removed from their occupation. Then we speak of byssinosis. Thirdly, there is weaver's cough, caused by mildewed yarn. Fourthly, there is another type of acute illness caused by handling low grade cotton affected by a minute organism. We believe that all these are byssinosis and not separate entities.
A leading article which appeared in the "British Medical Journal" in 1948 referred to 36 surveys of cotton workers in many countries, including Britain, where I am glad to say they were the most complete and the best of the surveys. The conclusions were largely as follows. First, that it is carding which liberates the noxious dust causing byssinosis. Secondly, the symptoms appear like those of asthma and bronchitis—and that is why in earlier days we put in 20 years, to distinguish between those who might have asthma and bronchitis from other causes. Third, and this

is the important point here, they develop after an exposure of 10 years or longer. That is specifically stated in this article, which I think is the latest information of the type we can lean on. It is said that during this time there are often milder manifestations, such as mill fever, but they clear up on removal to a clean atmosphere.
There is a reason why the Minister should accept this Amendment, if only because there will be a tendency for the workers to go before the boards rather earlier. Ten or 20 years is a long time, and human beings are differently constituted. We know that in silicosis and asbestosis different people are differently affected. The time factor differs. People with respiratory troubles may show more easily manifestations of the disease than those with a well developed chest and thoroughly healthy respiratory organs. If we can get people to come early, and if, as a result of coming early, they will be taken out of the dust rooms and obviously cured, we shall find that this is not going to cost anything. If accepted, this Amendment must save money; it is bound to save money while helping the most precious asset we have—the human material, the labour at work in this particular industry.
11.0 p.m.
Therefore, it is fair to say that the Minister should try to find some way out of his difficulty. I think he has done so well on the very much more important and major Amendment that he can take this one in his stride. Lastly, may I put this to him? There are bound to be a few people who are certainly going to suffer injustice unless this Amendment is accepted, and if there are only half-adozen, it still means an injustice is there. We do not create justice by turning our heads away and saying that evil does not exist because it is only a small one.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) did not overstate his case when he said that there was considerable difficulty in accepting the Amendment. On Second Reading, I told hon. Members that there were two criteria that we must follow. It must be administratively practicable, and it must conform to the existing


Workmen's Compensation and Industrial Injuries Acts. Under the Workmen's Compensation byssinosis scheme, we have the 20 years period as a pre-requisite; equally, we have it under the Industrial Injuries Act. We cannot, in this very limited field, attempt to amend the provisions of these schemes.
There is one further point. The hon. Gentleman rested part of his argument on medical evidence, and I would not attempt to compete with him on that. I would only say that, as late as July, 1948, at Manchester, there was a meeting of medical experts on this matter of the disease of byssinosis and the Regulations, and it was then agreed that it was imperative to retain the 20-year qualifying period. If that was the medical view in 1948, it would not appear that there is very much substance in the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
I will give him another argument. The hon. Gentleman talked about other investigations made into this matter of occupational disease. There was a report issued in January, 1950, on the research carried out by Dr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Dingwall-Fordyce, members of the Nuffield Department of Occupational Health. They examined 140 cases in 22 mills of men who had worked in this waste cotton process. They found that, out of these 140 cases, there were only seven cases of disability from byssinosis, and, of those seven cases, the shortest period which anyone had worked in the process was 26 years and the longest 52 years. They also examined 41 other cases of people who had left the dust rooms or had worked in processes other than in the waste cotton process, and, of these 41 cases, there were three who had been disabled from byssinosis, and the shortest period which anyone had worked was 28 years and the longest 60 years.
I therefore suggest that, as a result of medical evidence, this Amendment cannot possibly be accepted.

Dr. Stross: At the conference which the Parliamentary Secretary describes as a conference on byssinosis, can he say with some certitude how they defined byssinosis? Did they refer to the four conditions I have described, which the modern medical view considers to be byssinosis?

Mr. Turton: I was referring to the medical experts who were reviewing, in relation to the prescribed disease, the byssinosis Regulation, and presumably, therefore, those medical experts know byssinosis as well as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, and a good deal better than myself. I will add one final reason why this Amendment should be rejected. The unions concerned—the Association of Card Room Workers and the T.U.C.—had the opportunity, both in 1948 and 1950, to put forward their view that the 20-year period should be changed, but they did not do so. Therefore, I suggest that this Amendment is at least premature.

Mr. Hale: I am sorry to intervene again, but I would press the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the Government's attitude towards this Amendment, because what possible harm can it do? The test is whether a man is suffering from byssinosis. Either he is, or he is not. If he is and has worked in the cotton industry, then he ought to qualify under this Bill. If the Amendment is accepted it merely limits the test which is applied whether a man fails to qualify or not. Quite frankly, I cannot see why it is necessary to have a limiting period at all. As I say, if a man has byssinosis, he has got it.
I appreciate one difficulty. Of course, there are many dust diseases and many have similar symptoms to other diseases of the lung, and, therefore, it might be possible to confuse one with another with the result that a man in the cotton industry might get compensation for a disease other than byssinosis.

Dr. Stross: It has to be permanent, too.

Mr. Hale: Yes, and it has to be permanent. The only test at the moment under this Bill is whether a man is totally incapacitated by byssinosis or not. If he is, why should he be eliminated because he has only been employed in the cotton industry for 19 years? It seems to me, with respect, that the Parliamentary Secretary is putting a highly technical point, and, quite frankly, again with respect, on the figures he has quoted, the examinations were not very widespread. Everyone is happy to know that byssinosis today is beginning to disappear and


that in the modern card room people are not exposed to the dangers of the disease to the same extent as previously. We have some persons in Oldham suffering from this disease, but, fortunately, it is a disease which is decreasing under modern conditions whereas pneumoconiosis in the coalmines is on the increase.

Mr. Alfred Robens: I think it is a question of better diagnosis.

Mr. Hale: That is true, and that reinforces a point I was making earlier about people not benefiting because of faulty diagnosis.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this matter again. Why should it be said that if a man has been in the industry for 19 years and is totally incapacitated he fails to benefit merely because he had not completed 20 years in the industry at the time he became ill? Is it not really an archaic test? Is there any danger in saying that if a man has worked in a card room for seven or eight years and has contracted byssinosis he might benefit? Surely, the test is the disease. I gather from the way the Parliamentary Secretary is looking at the moment that he is in a more benevolent mood, and I hope that in a few seconds he might be urged to say that on the whole he will accept the Amendment.
But, quite seriously, it would be a very pleasant gesture if he did. The Minister must not become hidebound. This is the Civil Service mind predominating; it is the preconceived view which comes from a statistical survey of figures which have had all the humanity taken out of them. If a man is suffering from byssinosis today and lying in bed, probably in all the misery of present day housing conditions, in Oldham as elsewhere, do not let us cut him off from benefit because by a few months he has failed to qualify for a statistical test. If he is suffering and is totally incapacitated, why should he not benefit? If I cannot persuade the Parliamentary Secretary to jump to his feet, can I persuade him, then, to say that he will consider this matter between now and the report stage?

Dr. Morgan: We have seen in the trades union movement a great number

of these cases, and it really is difficult for us to understand this official view. I agree that conditions are changing, and that there have been considerable improvements in factories, but many of the unfortunate individuals now suffering from byssinosis contracted their complaint under the worst possible conditions.
This stringent attitude of fixing a certain number of years, where a man's chest disability has been diagnosed as byssinosis, is wrong. It is wrong that we should definitely state that he must have worked for a given period of 20 years in his particular employment before he can get his benefit. Factories vary; one man may inhale a great deal more in 16 years than his colleague inhales in 25. One cannot limit the absorption by workers' lungs by the number of years they have given to a specified occupation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider this and say that this very harsh attitude he is adopting, having regard to the various factors of varying circumstances in different factories and the different reactions in different human beings, will be altered? Why cannot he consider making this 10 years instead of 20?

Mr. Peake: Quite honestly, we are not adopting a harsh attitude, as the hon. Member has just said. We are, briefly and simply, trying to deal with two time-limits which have barred certain persons from obtaining Workmen's Compensation. So far as byssinosis is concerned, the disease is defined in this way by relation to a 20-year period of employment in the carding rooms of the cotton mills.
The Committee under Sir David Ross, which reported to the Home Office in 1938, said that the nature of the disease was such that a duly appointed medical board, in the case of an applicant of about 20 years' employment history, should be able, after considering all the clinical and historical evidence, to decide not only if he was incapacitated by respiratory disease, but whether that disease was respiratory in origin. That was in 1938—

Dr. Morgan: It is 13 years ago.

Mr. Peake: Yes, but it has also been adopted since for the purposes of the Industrial Injuries Insurance Act; furthermore, during the whole of the time that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was Minister of National Insurance, that 20-year rule has held good in regard to byssinosis, and during the whole of the time that the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Edith Summerskill) was Minister, the rule held.
It is not, therefore, reasonable to suggest that in this limited benefit Bill to deal with a few time-barred cases, we ought to alter what has for so long been accepted. It may be that there is a case on medical grounds for a change in the definition. If there was a case, it ought to be brought before the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. But it is perfectly clear that on this limited Bill we cannot pick these cases out because it would put them in a more favourable position than those who might claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the present Industrial Injuries Insurance Act.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Hale: This is a technical point, and it may be important. Byssinosis comes within the terms of the Industrial Inpuries Insurance Act and is included within the definition of pneumoconiosis, which is a wide definition of all dust diseases of the lung. It would come in under the one without the qualification of the other.

Mr. Peake: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is wrong about that point. This Bill is called the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Bill just because byssinosis is not included in the term pneumoconiosis. I am sorry we have to refuse this Amendment, but I think it would be quite impossible to alter the general law in this way. It would reopen the whole question of the prescription of byssinosis under the industrial injuries insurance scheme. There is appropriate machinery under which this could be considered, and the matter could be raised in a general way, but we could not alter the law by means of this Bill, and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Dr. Stross: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Stross: I do not apologise for keeping the Committee a minute or two longer, because I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to one particular matter. During the Second Reading I pointed out that some workers, particularly miners, might have been suffering when they were overmen, and therefore, earning £450 a year or more, would be left out according to the 1925 Compensation Act. I asked for them to be included in this Bill, and the Parliamentary Secretary in replying said that this could not be done. Since then he has written to me, and for the sake of the record, and because his answer is so satisfactory, I should like to read what he said:
On looking at my winding-up speech on the Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Bill last Friday, I think that I might have dealt more fully with your point on Clause 2 (1, e).
We have so worded the Subsection as not to exclude from the scope of the new Scheme any man who at some time or other in his life worked as a manual worker under contract of service in any of the processes covered for either pneumoconiosis or byssinosis. I quite understand that some men who contracted the disease from such employment may have failed in their claim to compensation because by the time they were found to be disabled by the disease they were no longer manual labourers and were outside whatever income limit then applied; but they will be within the scope of the scheme.
I take these words to mean that if men in the process of going up the ladder in the mining industry have ever stopped upon grounds which were inside the Workmen's Compensation Act they would come within these benefits. That being so, I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's letter, which I am sure will give great satisfaction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(NATURE AND AMOUNT OF BENEFIT.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from "funds," to "the," in line 21.
This implements the Minister's promise on Second Reading. We propose to leave out the words "or to compensation payable otherwise than out of such funds."


They were in the Bill originally presented by the right hon. Lady and would have had the effect that a man already in receipt of Workman's Compensation payment in respect of an industrial accident or other industrial disease might have had his rights under this Bill restricted. We believe such a restriction would be unfair to the workman, and we therefore ask the Committee to delete these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, after "wholly," to insert "or in part."
With permission, I will deal also with the following two Amendments, which are consequential. They fulfil an undertaking I gave on Second Reading in reply to a request by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). I promised that the Minister would put down an Amendment to ensure that the scheme under this Bill would have power to provide for cases of partial dependency.
Where the deceased has not left any person wholly dependent on him, but has left someone partially dependent on him, it is our intention that the Board should have discretion to award a sum or sums not exceeding £300. This makes it necessary to bring in the words which were in the right hon. Lady's Bill but which were not in our original Bill. It is our firm intention that where there is someone wholly dependent, it will be a sum of £300 that is awarded and not a less sum.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 9, to leave out "the," and insert "an."

In line 9, to leave out second "of," and insert "not exceeding."—[Mr. Turton.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(EXISTING BENEFIT SCHEMES.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, after "payable," to insert "or has been paid."
This Amendment is consequential on dating back the payment in the fatal cases for a period of two years. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that in cases

where £250 has already been paid under the benefit scheme there is only a further £50, to make up the total of £300 which will be attracted by the other cases which do not come under the benefit scheme. I think the point is quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hale: I want merely to mention this, because this Clause gives the definition of pneumoconiosis and refers back to Section 57 (3) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. That Section reads:
In this section the expression pneumoconiosis means fibrosis of the lungs due to silica dust, asbestos dust or other dust, and includes the condition of the lungs known as dust-reticulation.
In those circumstances it includes byssinosis.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member still has it wrong. If he reads the Section to which he refers he will see that pneumoconiosis means "fibrosis of the lungs" due to the various dusts. In the case of byssinosis, I am assured that there is not fibrosis of the lungs.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

TITLE.

Amendment made: In line 3, after "die," to insert:
or have died after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine." —[Mr. Peake.]

Title, as amended, ordered to be the Title to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments (Title amended) as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Peake.]

11.25 p.m.

Dr. Morgan: I shall not detain the House more than two minutes. I am very perturbed about the question of industrial diseases in general, and their diagnosis, especially with reference to pneumoconiosis. I want to ask whether the Minister will consider consulting with the Minister of Health. The question of medical diagnosis of the diseases mentioned in this Bill is very important.
Reference has been made constantly to medical boards. Who are to compose these boards? Obviously, they ought to be men who have some knowledge of the diseases with which they are to deal. I am not speaking of the men who are doing so at present, because some of them have got their experience in their postgraduate career. But will the Minister consult the Minister of Health and see whether he can do anything from the point of view of medical education in regard to the diagnosis of industrial diseases, especially—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not know where medical boards are mentioned in the Bill.

Dr. Morgan: The pneumoconiosis boards are mentioned. They are medical boards. I bow to your Ruling, but I submit, with great respect, that reference to the pneumoconiosis boards is a reference to boards which consist of medical members who are going to assess, and decide on, the medical diagnosis in any particular case. I hope I am right. I do not think the reference can mean anything else. The medical board must have some relation to some disease, and a pneumoconiosis board is dealing specially with individuals supposed to be suffering from an industrial lung disease of the type of pneumoconiosis mentioned in the Bill.
Will the Minister consider consulting the Minister of Health to see whether something can be done in regard to the medical education of members of the pneumoconiosis boards? I wish that the Minister would remember that there is practically no education in industrial diseases, or in diseases such as pneumoconiosis. There are 42 medical schools in Great Britain. There are only six in which there are permanent lectures on industrial diseases, and especially on these dust diseases.
I think that this is a question of great importance as regards justice to workers, who are to be decided for, or against. It is tremendously important to the men who will come before them that there should be on these boards men with some knowledge and experience of these diseases. In the matter of diagnosis, these cases are sometimes difficult to interpret. I do suggest that consultation with the Minister of Health, and with the medical schools, would lead to the constitution of these boards so that justice would be meted out.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I feel that the previous holder of my present office would be perhaps better qualified to deal with the point about the education of the medical profession which has just been raised. I will take note of what the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) has said, and will have it carefully examined in my Department. I can only say that the sooner the Bill comes into operation, the better it will be for all those concerned.

11.28 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I should like to say a word on Third Reading. I omitted to say on Second Reading that I welcomed the appointment of the new Minister, but I will remedy that now and, at the same time, congratulate him on the expeditious way in which he has piloted the Bill through the House. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to establish a precedent in asking a member on the Opposition Front Bench to deal with these questions. If he feels he would like some advice privately in some part of his work I am only too prepared to brief him before he appears next time.
Already, the Minister's ears must be burning because many of my hon. Friends have congratulated him on introducing this new Amendment. This Bill is not comprehensive, but the Minister has promised that he will consider representations made in regard to partial cases of incapacity. I think that every hon. Member will agree that this Bill represents a milestone on that road which has been travelled by many of my hon. Friends who have worked in the pits as boys and men and who have endeavoured for many years to secure some improvement in the lot of those men who have suffered from


these dread diseases of pneumoconiosis and byssinosis.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Alport, Mr. Alex. Anderson, Mr. Benson, Mr. Bossom, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Cuthbert, Mr. A. Edward Davies, Sir Ralph Glyn, Mr. Hoy, Mr. Jay, Mr. David Jones, Mr. Douglas Marshall, Sir John Mellor, Mr. Peter Roberts and Mr. David Thomas to be Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Brigadier Mackeson.]

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES

Lieut.-Commander Baldock and Mr. Thomas Reid discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates and Mr. Profumo and Mr. Michael Stewart added. —[Brigadier Mackeson.]

Orders of the Day — POST-WAR CREDITS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Brigadier Mackeson.]

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I am raising this matter in this House—I regret at so late an hour and with so scanty an attendance—because of my experience during the recent General Election. I had a quiet Election, with practically no heckling and very few questions, but at nearly every meeting, whether outdoors, in school classrooms, or at dock gates, questions were invariably asked me about post-war credits. They were asked by my supporters and my political opponents.
They asked why the Government had not paid out the credits at an earlier date, why the Government would not consider the cases of widows and orphans who were suffering hardship and who could do with the credits of their fathers and mothers who had died. I was also asked about people in straitened circumstances to whom the release of credits would be a substantial relief. There seemed to be a widespread idea among the general public that these post-war credits are fairy gold which they will never see and never handle.
In introducing the scheme for post-war credits in the Budget of 1941, Sir Kingsley Wood, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:—
 … the extra tax which any individual will pay … will be offset after the war by a credit which will then he given in his favour in the Post Office Savings Bank…that part of the extra tax…will constitute some provision for post-war difficulties and will, I hope, form an additional fund of post-war savings for himself and his dependents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1941; Vol. 370, c. 1329.]
It may be argued whether he was wise or not in instituting this system of postwar credits. It is possible that when the nation was fighting for its life the taxpayers would have borne very heavy taxation without undue complaint. But there is no doubt whatever that Sir Kingsley Wood was specific in the statement he made that these post-war credits would be paid out after the war, and would be put to the accounts of the people to whom they were due in the Post Office Savings Bank. When I and most other people read that statement at the time we came to the conclusion that as soon as the war was over the credits would be available for them to draw in cash or to leave to accumulate interest. Nobody thought these credits would not be disbursed until men and women reached old age.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is raising the question of the repayment of post-war credits. I am not satisfied whether that can be done without legislation. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will assist me in this?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As I understand it the only step which can be taken without legislation would be the payment in full which, if carried out in full and simultaneously, could be effected by Treasury Order. Any alternative scheme would require legislation.

Mr. Speaker: That is what I supposed. I hope the hon. Member will keep himself in order, bearing that in mind.

Mr. Morley: I hope I shall be in order, Sir, in reporting some of the letters I have received from people who desire to draw their post-war credits. There is the case of widows. I know of one whose son was killed in the war and who had a post-war credit due to him; the shock


of his death was so great that his father died shortly afterwards, and he also had a credit due; but the widow, now in straitened circumstances, is not able to draw those credits for some considerable time.
I had a letter only yesterday from a woman constituent who said her mother was a widow and that her brother, who had reached the age of 13, was becoming expensive to keep and wanted a great number of things, which the widow could provide if only she could draw her post-war credit. This morning I had a letter from another constituent, who said her husband's wage was only £4 a week, he had been sick for a considerable time, the rent and rates amounted to 26s. a week, and they had just received a demand for £12 back payment of rates. They were not in a position to pay this demand, and it looked as if the husband would have to go to gaol, but if the post-war credit was paid, there would be no necessity for him to go to gaol.
I recognise that it would not be possible to pay the whole outstanding credits in one payment. Originally, there was a sum of £800 million due in post-war credits, of which about £200 million has been payed off, and there is now about £610 million outstanding. At the present rate of payment of about £17 million a year it will probably be in the 'eighties before the last is payed off. It might even be later than that, because if a man dies before 65 his post-war credit goes to his heir, and if the heir dies before 65, the credit goes to the heir's heir, and so practically to the last syllable of recorded time. It would, therefore, take many years before the whole of the post-war credits were dealt with.
I recognise the great difficulty in the matter, and I am afraid that everything I say will be ruled out of order by the Minister, but how delightful it would be if the Treasury could possibly make an Order that post-war credits should be paid out one year sooner in every successive year, so that, next year, they would be paid at 64, the following year at 63 and the year after at 62. Thus, on the one hand, the age at which the credits will be paid out would be decreasing each

year, while, year by year, everybody would be getting older, and, before long, the two converging lines would meet.
Since this is, after all, a debt, as I hope the Financial Secretary will agree, I am wondering if that debt could not be funded. I think a debt can be funded without legislation, but by Treasury Order, and I am wondering if it could not be funded and a reasonable interest paid to the holders of the post-war credits, if it is not possible to repay the credits as a whole at a very early date. I am not raising this matter as a party issue at all. As a matter of fact, I have in the last two Parliaments put down Questions to successive Chancellors of the Exchequer and Financial Secretaries to the Treasury, and have received "dusty" answers from both. It appears that Chancellors and Financial Secretaries are hard-hearted men whom it is very difficult to move into any manifestation of pity for the financially unfortunate.
This question of the repayment of post-war credits has not only been raised from this side of the House. The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) said quite recently that the nonpayment of post-war credits was the most monstrous swindle any Government had ever perpetrated in the whole history of the country. I will not go as far as that, because I think that particular hon. Member has a gift for rhodomontade which I cannot possible emulate. I would prefer what was said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. De la Bère), who said that the position regarding the repayment of post-war credits was most unsatisfactory. I think hon. Members on both sides will agree with that.
In raising this question, I am perfectly well aware that the Financial Secretary cannot anticipate his right hon. Friend's Budget statement, but I would like him to appreciate the great feeling there is in the country over this question. I would ask him to tell us that he will persuade his right hon. Friend to give it sympathetic consideration and that, without revealing any Budget secrets, he can say that there might be a possibility that the disbursement of post-war credits will be expedited in the near future. If he can do that, I am sure he will earn the gratitude and esteem of some 12 million of his fellow citizens.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: First of all, I would congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) on the skilful way in which he addressed the House without infringing the rules of order.
I should like to declare a vocational, as well as a personal, interest in this matter, because, if by any miracle, H.M. Government did decide to repay the whole of the post-war credits, it would be the members of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation who would have the job to do, and I happen to be their Secretary. I suppose that the time is long past when it would be profitable to discuss the economic consequences of post-war credits, but, if the late Lord Keynes were still alive, I am sure he would have many interesting reflections to make upon the cause during the war of this very big post-war problem.
I am not going to make any suggestions to the Financial Secretary because I am sure I should not be anything like so skilful as my hon. Friend in avoiding the difficulties of order. But what I am going to put to him is a humble appeal that the Government should consider their policy in regard to the unpaid post-war credits. There is a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of post-war credit holders, and a great deal of uncertainty as to what is the position.
I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the economic situation being what it is, and foreseeable perhaps for several years to come, it would be a kindness and would remove uncertainty among those who are looking for repayment of post-war credits earlier than already provided for if the Government were to say what they propose to do or what they do not propose to do about the repayment of post-war credits. Clearly, we all understand that the whole of them could not be repaid at once in one go. The paying out of £600 million in present conditions would not only be a great strain upon the Exchequer, but would have serious inflationary consequences.
That not being possible, something between the complete repayment in one go and the present arrangement might be possible. However that may be, I think that if the Government could say—not tonight perhaps—or could consider in the course of the coming months what their

policy is going to be for some years ahead, then everybody could make their arrangements accordingly, and would not be expecting that perhaps next year a kindly Chancellor would give them their money back or perhaps the year after that they might get it a little earlier than seems possible at present. I think it would be a good thing if we could have a period of certainty for good or ill about the repayment of these credits. Not only would the public know where they stand, but members of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation would know where they stand, and that, from my point of view, would be a good thing.

11.48 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I should like to express my gratitude to both the hon. Members who have spoken for the most courteous, moderate and reasonable way in which they have expressed their views, and I would, if I may, add my personal thanks to the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) for being so good as to notify me in advance as to the general line he proposed to take.
I am very sorry that his experience of Financial Secretaries and Chancellors of the Exchequer has been that they have given him "dusty" answers, and I will at least seek to give him an answer which is not "dusty," though he will, I know, appreciate that the possibility of my being able to reply tonight with any degree of definiteness to the point of view he has put forward is obviously not a very considerable one.
We have not yet reached the time of year at which the phrase, "I must not anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement" becomes part of the regular currency of Parliamentary discussion, but we are getting somewhat near to that period, and it is obvious that considerations of this magnitude must inevitably be considered jointly by those responsible and as a part of the general financial discussions of the year.
I was very struck by what the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who has very great experience in these matters, said on the subject of definiteness. I will certainly see that the point he has put forward is carefully considered. The difficulty which at once


strikes one about it is this. As he mentioned, in the present financial position of the country definiteness would have to be much more for ill than good. If we were to say something very definite, it inevitably could not be anything at all pleasant. I appreciate that, from the point of view of the very fine body of public servants, and on behalf of the people concerned, there is great weight in what he says. I will give the assurance, here and now, that this matter will be most carefully considered.
But let me deal with the general history of post-war credits. It is too well known for me to add more than a word or two to what has already been said, although I might make a very slight correction in the figures which have been mentioned tonight. The original sum involved was £800 million, and of that £177 million has been repaid, under the scheme introduced by the late Government, to those who reach old age pensionable age; and another £20 million has been dealt with by setting it off against income tax arrears under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Hugh Dalton). Outstanding is £603 million, so far as we can calculate it.
I think that I need only add that, at the time, there were two reasons, be they good, or be they bad, for the introduction of the scheme. It was originally introduced in connection with the reduction of the personal allowances of Income Tax payers, introduced in the Finance Act of 1941. The purpose of the scheme, as I understand, was, in the first place, to make seem less onerous—to make it seem so—the burdens necessarily imposed for fighting the war. Secondly, it was to create a substantial amount of purchasing power which could be released after the war should a depression develop. The line of thought there was closely associated with the White Paper on employment, presented to Parliament in 1944 by the then Minister for Reconstruction.
This matter was last raised as an Adjournment Motion by the hon. Member who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Braithwaite), and the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who replied on behalf of the Government, said that he was "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd" by the Rules of Order. Whatever may have

changed since that time, the Rules of Order remain, and I feel a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Battersea, North.
It is very difficult to deal, on their merits, with the various proposals, including those so temperately put forward this evening, for accelerating repayment. We are in the paradoxical position of finding that the solution of immediate repayment of the £603 million now outstanding, the one solution which all hon. Members, on its merits, have ruled out, is the only solution which you, Mr. Speaker, would rule in.
I can, therefore, only deal with these matters in a general way, but it has struck me, since I assumed my present office, that we have all discussed these schemes for the acceleration of payment of postwar credits somewhat in the dark; that is, without knowing what the schemes would cost. But I can tell the House that I have arranged for inquiries to be made with a view to ascertaining as accurately as possible—and complete accuracy is not obtainable—for publication before the House rises for Christmas, a statement of what the cost of these alternative repayment schemes to widows, at death, and so on, will be. I will make those figures available in one way or another so that when we next discuss this matter we can do so with the full knowledge of what the financial considerations will be.
I hope I do not need to say that my doing so does not indicate any necessary willingness on the part of the Government to accept any proposal. It is merely to facilitate the House of Commons in coming to a decision in due course. I can give figures tonight in the particular matter which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Itchen referred to—the proposal to bring the age of payment down one year. The cost would be slightly more than the present cost of paying at old age pension age. That figure is about £17 million. Of course, as one gets into lower age groups there is a slight increase in the number of people in the age group.

Mr. Wilkins: Will the figures that have been promised to the House include these figures?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Certainly. The figure for the reduced age would be just under £18 million, and if it is reduced


by more than a year it is a matter almost but not quite of arithmetical progression.
I am bound to warn the House about this. There are the greatest difficulties at this moment in any increase in expenditure, particularly of a nature such as this, which inevitably means an increase in the purchasing power available in the country. I need only commend to hon. Gentlemen what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the debate on the Address on 7th November. It is a matter of great danger to the whole chances of financial recovery to allow any substantial amount of further purchasing power to be made available.
Although, in the hon. Gentleman's eyes, Financial Secretaries and Chancellors have hard hearts, it is essential that the House of Commons should have a hard head. No one, in the long run, would benefit by large increases in purchasing power being made available. Those who gain by one turn of the wheel will inevitably lose by higher prices and a weakened national financial position on the next turn of the wheel, and I beg hon. Gentlemen in putting forward proposals of this sort—for each of which on their separate merits there is an immense amount to be said—to bear in mind the picture as a whole—so lucidly described by the Chancellor—of a situation in which the danger of increased inflationary pressure in this country with all its consequences, is a danger that simply cannot be exaggerated.
That is why I cannot give any undertakings tonight; except this. I give willingly the undertaking that what has been

said tonight—and on a good many other occasions in this House and elsewhere—will be most carefully considered by the Government. It will be weighed on its merits, but against the whole background of our national financial policy; and before the time comes for introducing the financial proposals for next year, full and sympathetic consideration will be given to the issues which have been so well put forward in this House. I can give that assurance but the House, I think, will not expect me tonight to give any other.

Mr. S. S. Awbery: Is there not a moral obligation upon the Treasury to meet its promise to the people and to pay back this credit?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are many moral obligations upon the Treasury, and the supreme moral obligation, as I understand it, is to conduct the nation's financial affairs in general for the benefit of the nation. No separate obligation, however morally backed it may be, can be allowed to supervene against that supreme obligation. Apart from that, I am not disposed to argue with the hon. Member, but he himself will recall that, while the obligation remains, the precise date of its discharge or the rate of its discharge must be judged against the background of the nation's financial situation. I do not think that he himself will dissent from that view.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute past Twelve o'Clock a.m.